In January, a survey by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Bureau (ADS) showed 83 percent of respondents saying marriage between two men or two women should be allowed.
Since 2001 there has been a special legal arrangement for same-sex couples in Germany which stipulates they are not allowed to adopt children.
Hape Kerkeling, a German comedian and writer, told "Der Spiegel" magazine he considered it "shameful" that Germany had not adopted laws allowing equality for gay couples. He encouraged the CDU party leader, using an expression that echoed her call from the country's management of the migrant crisis: "You can do it!" ("Das schaffen Sie!")
Merkel has previously commented that she was unsure of the consequences for the children within gay marriages.
The chancellor candidate for the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, has called for equality for gay marriage, and the party looks set to make it an election issue. The party has proposed protection for the status of marriage and family and to extend it to "other forms of cohabitation," Thomas Oppermann, chairman of the SPD parliamentary group, said last month. The Greens and Left (Linke) parties also support the idea.
Sorry for the shitty reading comprehension, but... are you saying that Schulz is anti-gay marriage or something? Why are you making this thread?
Ryder Diaz
No Schulz is pro-gay marriage. Because he will win.
Hudson Thompson
Nice idea, but:
- Gay marriage is against the constitution. Ruled by the Supreme Court, no question about it. He would need to change it, won't have the needed qualified majority. - BUT: We have civil unions already, basically gay marriages with the same rights as normal ones, with just another name. So basically he is just trying to score points from dumb liberals. - Schulz is a corrupt nepotistic alcoholic liar.
Sage.
Luke Bennett
Because he's paid to do so? Are you new?
Isaiah Fisher
How much does the JuSo pay you?
-Gays and lesbians are already allowed to marry. It's just called differently.
-They aren't allowed to adopt children. For that he would do have to change the constitution.
-Also the 83% for gay marriage weren't asked "do you want lesbians to adopt children?" Would like to see the result on that survey. Also they are right to not allow it until there is enough studies done on the effects on children.
-Hape kerkeling is washed up and not funny anymore.
Still saged.
Noah Rivera
>Gay marriage is against the constitution. Ruled by the Supreme Court, no question about it. Really?
Mason Morgan
Yes. That's why they had to make up that whole "Lebenspartnerschaft" shit.
Art. 6 GG "Marriage and family are specially protected under the constitution"
(Long standing) Interpretation from the courts and judges: Family = children and parents (Man and woman) Marriage = the fact that it's "marriage and family" in the text of the constitution it means that marriage must be the precursor and antecedent of a family. Therefore marriage = the union between a man and a woman, because only from their union a family with children can be (naturally) formed.
Because "marriage... is specially protected..." meant they weren't allow to let gays be married and call it marriage. Therefore they invented "lebenspartnerschaften"
But keep in mind that over time interpretation of laws might change and be influenced by the zeitgeist. But this takes a loooot of time.
Ian Parker
>we are getting overrun by Muslims but at least homos can't marry!
Brilliant thinking
Jose Allen
They can marry, it's just not called "marriage" dumbo.
Also Martin Schulz is for even more migration from Arabic countries so he is not the right candidate for you to shill, might I be right in my interpretation?
Tyler King
Then it is not marriage. Merkel loses points with gays, and women but gains the support of Muslims, who really wins with that? If minority groups can't get rights with Merkel and she doesn't even keep the Muslims out what choice is it really?
Nathan Ward
bump
Lincoln Hernandez
They have allot the same rights though (except adoption but that's a right not all heterosexual couples have either). They have the same tax, estate and heritage rights etc. and the same obligations of alimony and support as heterosexual couples.
They have the same fancy ceremony before the marriage registrar.
There is no difference in rights and obligations.
Also why do you keep talking about Muslims? What do they have to do with anything? You seem to be a simple shitposter.
Nathaniel Price
Memeing
Owen Lopez
>- BUT: We have civil unions already, basically gay marriages with the same rights as normal ones, with just another name. So basically he is just trying to score points from dumb liberals.
You're missing the point of poopdick marriage, it's not about "muh rights" but about (((destroying))) the traditional institution of marriage.
Nolan Stewart
Because it is ridiculous people would support Merkel for saving them against gays adopting kids when the country is being destroyed by Muslims being let in, not by homosexuals.
Brayden Cooper
fuck off, /lbgt/
Grayson Brooks
Ah okay. That's why the amerifat seems to be a little buttflustered.
Still: That's unconstitutional in Germany though, so it would be an empty promise by Schulz.
Another of his empty, nonsensical promises he makes. Truly a great guy....
Blake Powell
Nobody votes for any candidate because "he or she saves us from gays as adopting kids", m8. Gay marriage is the least of any voter's concern sorry to tell you. It's migration and security. And the CDU is still way beer in both regards than Schulz and his SPD.
They won't vote for your candidate because he would try to change the name of civil unions to "marriages".
Also, if you are so concerned by my country being flooded by arabs, why shill for schulz? You make no sense here, m8. He is for open borders and taking everybody in. He is trying for a coalition with the communists and the greens.
Have fun being a gay in that kind of society in a few years. But hey, at least you would able to call your union "marriage" when you get berated in the streets for it by the newcomers.
Funny priorities you have there.
Asher Gray
I think the ability to adopt kids and to say you are married not "partnered" is pretty significant.
If it doesn't matter which party you vote for in terms of importing Muslims (both do it) then you might as well vote for the one that gives you increased rights.
Elijah Anderson
That's objectively wrong though. you wouldn't gain rights voting for Schulz because he can't give you them, he can't change the constitution. He doesn't have the qualified majority to change the constitution. That takes a 2/3 majority. Not his party alone and not with his desired coalition partners.
So you'd basically be voting for none additional rights and even moooore Muslims who aren't fond of you as a homosexual. Wew lad. Not the best idea.
Also please show me a survey conducted in Germany answered by constituents where the question was not "I support gay marriage" but "I would let same sex couples adopt children without knowing the long term effects on the child's development" and give me the number of supporters there. Won't be 83% that much I can tell you.
Nathaniel Adams
Entirely possible to form a leftist 2/3 coalition
Hudson Richardson
No, wrong again. sorry to tell you. Right know they would get around 46-47%. So not even a majority needed to form a government. They were at 49% but are already dropping again.
That number being if all of them even make it into parliament. We have a rule in Germany: you have to make 5.0 %or more to make it into parliament. Greens have dropped to 6%, their trend is still falling. They already didn't get back into the regional parliament of Saarland which was voted for a week ago. The Linke, the socialists, as at 7% also falling. So there is a good possibility at least the greens won't make it into parliament.
You are wrong on all accounts so far. Stop shilling and be glad you are able to marry and adopt in the USA.
Connor Lewis
I think that change is inevitable for Germany as well. The gay marriage decision in the U.S. is still fairly recent but the reverberations have been global.
John Wright
Okay, you are just shitposting. I get it. Shame on me for having memes by you. Well done, have y (You)s you deserve them.
No sense in talking to you, if you don't acknowledge my countries' constitution and laws, my arguments and basically simple facts. Have a good one and stay safe.
Sage
Benjamin Adams
I believe you I just think it can still happen. 49% + 6 +7 is 62 and that is nearly 2/3.
Could you link me to where it requires 2/3 due to the constitution declaring marriage to be between man and a woman? Not that I don't believe you I just want to read it myself.
Jaxson Hall
Okay I bite although I said I won't because it's fun, let's face it the. The 46-47% you are referring to are not the numbers of the SPD alone but all of the left parties added up.
Spd 33% Linke 7% Greens 6%
Equals 46%.
And the part about constitutionality is in every constitutional law book there is.
John Russell
REMINDER THIS IS WHERE THESE PRO-SCHULZ FAGGOTS CONGREGATE:
reddit/ .com/r/the_schulz
They unironically copy everything from t_d and think that's gonna meme schulz to win
Can't find good English sources, they are all wishy washy But the decision of the supreme court were it defined marriage as "a long-term union between man and woman" is this one
BVerfGE 105, 313 (345)
Gavin Fisher
I was just hoping you could link to an English source. I didn't see anything on the wiki page about gay rights in Germany about the Constitution forbidding it. Maybe I just didn't read closely enough.
Levi Long
So it is a decision of the Supreme Court or written into the Constitution?
Justin Ortiz
This sub is literally managed and payed for by the SPD's (Schulz' party) youth organisation JuSo or "Jungsozialisten". So it's the definition of an astroturfing campaign.
Still only they postthere nobody else, like normal people, and they only have a couple of hundred posts and like 5 posts daily were they post cringinglytranslated trump memes.
Truly pathetic.
Jose Williams
As I said I have no good English sources. The Wikipedia one is a truly bad one.
If I find a good one I will post it here.
Isaiah Gomez
It is the supreme court's ruling on the constitution therefore judge-made effective (constitutional) law according to the constitution.
