Black Dog

My understanding is that we can't have civil unions without a constitutional amendment to create such a thing. Given that same sex marriage is already legal in six provinces and one territory, such an amendment would be pointless. Really, it amazes me that some can rail against the gun registry as a costly and wasteful bureaucratic nightmare, yet lobby for the creation of another level of bureaucracy to duplicate an existing one in all but name. "Civil unions" would be pointless. Definitions are determined in part by popular usage: will gays entering civil unions refer to them as such? "Did you hear? Stan and Dave got civil union'd!" Furthermore, if such things existed, could me and my girlfriend enter into a civil union? Or, since we are in a heterosexual relationship, would the default be marriage? Basically, the only realistic options are: 1) Change the constitutional definition of marriage to include same sex couples. 2) Replace all state sanctioned unions with "civil unions" leaving marriage to the churches (of course, under these circumstances, married couples would not be eligible to any rights and benefits accorded to civil union'd couples. Unless they decided to get civil union'd on top of their marriage.) 3) No benefits for married couples. Marriage will remain a religious matter. Atheists, homosexuals and others looking to formalize their relationships, but who are not wishing to do so in the confines of a religious ceremony are s.o.l.

They should check under the couch. I lose stuff under there all the time.

Off the cuff, I don't have a problem with this notion (loathe as I am ordinarily to back "get tough on crime" stances), but I always pause for aminute when I see terms like "police strike teams" used. The militirization and corresponding decrease in accountability among North American police forces is a growing problem. And I hate to think that we need to find ways to make it worse.

Sure: we'll pay on a per-threat basis. I have a toonie here that should about cover it.

But religious freedoms are protected by the Charter as well. Can you explain how, even after the SCC explicitly stated that religous groups would not be obligated to perform same-sex marriages, such a challenge would be successful? So what makes you think the average Canadian has any more honesty, integrity or intellect than those "academics and judges" you revile? What century are you in? gays are free to adopt or (in the case of same sex female couples) have kids via artificial insemenation. So just because gay unions don't produce kids the "old-fashioned way" does not preclude gay couples from raising children. By this same logic, then, hetero couples who are unwilling or unable to have kids should be stripped of whatever benefits they recieve through marriage. This is not an argument against gay marriage; it's an argument against marriage benefits. As I said above, religious freedoms are not trumped in the case of gay marriage. Period. I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, so long as it is between consenting adults. Besides, polygamy is one of the oldest forms of marriage their is: what could be more "traditional" than that. Bullshit. Incest is a Criminal Ciode Offense: to legalize incest would require overturning the relevant criminal statutes. It ain't gonna happen: this is as blatant an example of fear mongering as their can be. Furthermore: the Charter "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That means you cannot discriminate against marriage based on a persons colour, creed, religion, race, sex, or any other constitutionally protected attribute. Polygamysts, people in incestuous relationships, or people who f**k dogs are not constitutionally protected groups. So the traditional and legal prohibitions against animal, multiple or inter-family marriages could be considered "reasonable limits". Yet there have been homosexuals as long as there have been people. It's not a hereditary trait like eye colour.

Why?

Bah. The SCC decision clearly states that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

Marriage may not be a basic human right, but the principle of equality under the law is universally recognized. And that's the issue here. Through the instituition of marriage, heterosexuals are entitled to legal benefits and privileges, not afforded to gays by virtue of their sexual orientation. That's pure discrimination.

Ordinary people? No. As I said, they are too busy worrying about things that actually affect them. The rabble that I'm talking about are the social dinosaurs who feel it is their democratic right to dictate the terms of other people's relationships. ANy evidence? Proof? Or just paranoia?

I disagree. Most people only get really worked up about what affects them directly. The legal redefinition of marriage will not affect anyone who is not gay and looking to get married, therefore most people will just ignore it.

Logical, coherent...anything. I have no doubt you could find opponents to same sex marriage among the CanWest Global stable or in Alberta's Sun newspaper. It just doesn't suit your purposes to do so. I certainly never made that claim. I don't think it's any of the "people's" damn business. Honestly, why should the rabble have a say in the legal definition of a civil institution?

Very verbose, but ultimately, missing the point entirely. We're dealing strictly with a civil issue regarding the legal definition of marriage. Regardless of what civil sanction marriage receives, no action of the state can change the meaning of marriage for the individual participants. The symbolic value of marriage which you speak of will remain intact and could even grow with its expansion to segments of the population previously exempt. Does the government currently issue friendship licences or friendship benefits? That ship sailed a long time ago when the state began sanctioning who can and cannot get married. You can say what you want about me, but leave B'aal out of this. As I said, above, they can't. Nor is anyone trying to. Whether gay people can marry or not, the personal importance you attach to marriage cannot be changed with legislation, any more than they can change my total ambivilance towards the institution.

That's probably because anti-SSM folks can't seem to formulate a decent argument against it. I've certainly yet to see one. Also Ontario. Last I saw, Atlantic Canada was smack in the middle.

I posted some somewhere, but can't be bothered to find them Most Canadian polls show a growing majority in favour of SSM. Support is strongest in Quebec and B.C., weakest in (surprise!) Alberta, where the conservative ethos of individual rights apparently only applies to heterosexuals . In any case, this is an instance where legislators need to do the right thing and put an end to institutionalized discrimination, not bow to the demands of the ever-shrinking number of social dinosaurs and religious zealots.

Thank you, darling.

No, there are also those physical and emotional bonds. Which still doesn't exclude same sex relationships. Bollocks. Throughout history, marriage has evolved and changed with society according to shifting cultural values and pressures. I shouldn't have to point out that at some points in history (and indeed, to this day) marriage was defined in some societies as a union between a man and any number of women. Similarly, in our own society, marriage was at one time defined, both legally and socially, as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. Times change and the definition of marriage is not immutable, despite your feeble protestations to the contrary. It would certainly bolster your argument is you were able to define what "thing" marriage (as you define it) is rooted in. On second thought, it probably wouldn't. Pointless ad hominem. I can certainly recognize a lousy argument when I see it. Tell you what, o-enlightened one: why don't you edify us as to what great secret you hold that would "kneecap" the arguments arrayed against you. After all, if you have such a knockout punch at your disposal, why bother wasting our time with your shoddy logic and smug superiority? Come on: bring it .

MLW page Canada will be one of the first countries in the world to recognize same sex marriages as opposed to "civil unions" or some such.

Link.

Wrong again. Without state recognition, marriage is purely a symbolic measure between the individuals involved. However, with state recognition of marriage comes a host of legal and economic benefits. So if the state decided to stop recongizing marriages it would also have to cease providing those benefits. As I said, marriage without state recognition is purely a symbolic gesture and, therefore, it would be up to the individuals involved to decide what their definition of marriage is. You seem to be operating on the flawed assumption that there's a universal, immutable definition of marriage. There is no such thing. Your argument is a crock.

Woosh! Well, give me a reason to take you seriously.

What a bullshit analogy. There are objective facts to demonstrate the composition of the moon and the colour of the sky. Marriage, however, is a man-made institution and thus subject to whatever changes man deems necessary.

I have a hradtime believeing that bow-tied prick could "smack down" anyone. What's more, anyone who actually things Ann Coulter is capable of having a point (other than the one on the top of her belached head) is delusional. Coulter's a clown, a carnival barker, not a serious thinker or journalist. Her rich, white, priviledged elite upbringing?

Somewhere Jerry Falwell's thinking "Hey! That's a great idea...."

No. Criticsm of other regimes or their own hits too close to home. The U.S. is an easy target, a distraction (much the same way "the terrorists" are used here to distract from failing domestic policies). So these regimes have no problem taking money and arms from the U.S. with one hand and formenting antiwestern sentiment on the other. As for the U.S., they don't really care what these regimes say, so long as they do what their told. The poverty of these nations' peoples (not the ruling classes you speak of) are the result of the policies engineered by the ruling classes who are the ones with close ties to western interests. So, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and others were all, at one time or another, client states of the west, who turned (and continue to turn) a blind eye to poverty and repression in exchange for access to resources, markets for arms etc. It's really weird how your view of the Middle East completely disregards the historical record that puts today's situation in context. For instance, you argue "colonialism is dead", which while nominally correct in that the west is not actively conquering and ruling these nations (well: except Iraq), they are doing so, and have been doing so since the end of World War 1, by proxy. Why, even a short list of U.S. intervention in Mid East politics shows that colonialism, in its modern form, is alive and well. link.

But the students aren't even being exposed to the sites: those are for the teacher's reference, as the quote from the minister indicated. In any case, I don't think attacking this program based on what students might possibly be exposed to is a valid criticism. It's pretty clear that this parent's group is not concerned about what kind of education students get, but about getting a program in plac ehat conforms to their ideaology.