California High Court Upholds Marriage Ban

[bush_cheney2004]

As was said above, it appears that we are not the ones seeking validation. I would be as sure that what we did was right if no one else was doing it.

I disagree, since there has been intense Canadian interest in what the USA has done and is doing for same gender marriage long before Canada "lead the way" as late as 2005 (other nations preceded this...Canada wasn't "first"). Hawaii and other states pioneered this issue long before that as well. Canadian media is a good enough barometer for such things.

My take on it comes from the practical issue of marriage recognition for international travel and emmigration to the USA, to court mandated vs. legislated action on the issue, for or against. Canada had every opportunity to add sexual orientation to the Charter of Rights in 1982, but deliberately chose to exclude same for political reasons.

Edited June 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

I disagree, since there has been intense Canadian interest in what the USA has done

Since this is the section of the forum where we talk about the USA, that is probably to be expected. I also don't care who did it first and who is doing it now. Canada did it, and it was right. As of yet, most of the USA hasn't.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Since this is the section of the forum where we talk about the USA, that is probably to be expected. I also don't care who did it first and who is doing it now. Canada did it, and it was right. As of yet, most of the USA hasn't.

Not just here, but in other Canadian media as well. I think being only one of four nations to do so automatically invites the need for validation, if only for practical reasons of marriage recognition. In fact, same gender marriage is just a sub-text from a larger tote board of 'Merkin comparisons and contrasts that some Canadians use to discern and define themselves.

[Smallc]

I think being only one of four nations to do so automatically invites the need for validation, if only for practical reasons of marriage recognition.

I think that your application of American standards to everything Canadian shows how little you understand about Canada even after being on here for so long. We don't need you to say it's ok...in fact, we'd probably rather that you didn't.

In fact, same gender marriage is just a sub-text from a larger tote board of 'Merkin comparisons and contrasts that some Canadians use to discern and define themselves.

The fact that you don't seem to understand why comparisons are constantly made shows that you fail to realize that there is legitimate reason for the comparison. For a country to compare itself to its neighbour, one that has different begginings and a different history, yet one that is so similar in so many ways, is quite natural. Coming on a forum devoted to discussions about another country and constantly pointing out when others make said comparisons is defitinely not, however.

Many Canadians use America to help define what Canada is not, but many Canadians also know what Canada is. They don't all know how to express it (even I have trouble with that at times), but they understand it. Your observations on our inadequacies are not really necessary or the least bit helpful. It very much reminds one of something that someone with a complex of one type or another would engage in.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think that your application of American standards to everything Canadian shows how little you understand about Canada even after being on here for so long. We don't need you to say it's ok...in fact, we'd probably rather that you didn't.

If by that you mean the definition of Canadian standards in American terms, so be it. I think many Canadians are mentally keeping a scoreboard of how many states, for or against. And further, they are looking to reinforce stereotypes of Yankee "rednecks", "Bible belt", and gay bashing.

The fact that you don't seem to understand why comparisons are constantly made shows that you fail to realize that there is legitimate reason for the comparison. For a country to compare itself to its neighbour, one that has different begginings and a different history, yet one that is so similar in so many ways, is quite natural. Coming on a forum devoted to discussions about another country and constantly pointing out when others make said comparisons is defitinely not, however.

You still don't get it....my membership on this forum is the very embodiment of such behaviour. Were I to drop dead this instant, America and Americanisms would still be here.....in spades. Frankly, I am amazed at just how pervasive American "culture" is in Canada, and entertain the idea that Quebec may be right!

Many Canadians use America to help define what Canada is not, but many Canadians also know what Canada is. They don't all know how to express it (even I have trouble with that at times), but they understand it. Your observations on our inadequacies are not really necessary or the least bit helpful. It very much reminds one of something that someone with a complex of one type or another would engage in.

Come now, surely you can stand a bit of the same that Canadians dish out on a regular basis. You don't appreciate it, nor are you expected to. Neither do Americans. Too bad for either side of the border, as it is sometimes helpful to cut across the grain.

We are very well aware of how Canada uses America to define itself....it is the UnCola.

Edited June 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

We are very well aware of how Canada uses America to define itself....it is the UnCola.

Wait, I thought this was about California.

[Shady]

Just so you know, this is where your contempt shines through.

Well, I'm simply speaking the truth. If the truth also contains some contempt in it, then so be it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The gays try to make this an issue about human rights. It's not. Marriage is not a human right.

Most reports fail to mention the court upheld the laws extending all benefits of domestic partnerships to gay couples including hospital visitation etc.

So their rights have not been trampled on, they've been upheld.

This isn't about rights, it's about labels and definitions.

Call it something else. Or shall we change to definition of "heterosexual" too?

[Oleg Bach]

Exactly! That's the point - about redefining how humanity communicates - to change a tree to sky and a rock to water - don't want to go the slipperly slop route but I will mention.....the fact that we must discriminate and seperate the milk from the vinigar - to adulterate our language actually kills it and makes it useless. We regress and de-evolve when we tamper with the music that is language...There are bench marks in music - an A note is exactly 440 cycles per second...and it must be percise - all players must be tuned to this in order to orchestrate ---with out this standard all hell breaks loose and you have a mess - Marriage is a male having sex with a female to generate more life...that's the ultimate bottom line- Once this concept is adulterated and changed to a grey useless soup - the end results will be that humanity will stop breeding and slowly become extinct.

Some social engineers push gayity and lesbianism as a form of birth control because they believe they are saving the planet if the pesky hetro sexuals stop breeding. We must continue to breed - and marry - and the best and finest coupulation that exists IS and will always be between a male and a female - social engineers seek to taint and destroy this sourse of power - a power that built the very civilization that grants the right of discourse....do not bite the had that built the house - the next house might just be a shack.

[Moonlight Graham]

Gay marriage is not marriage - if they can not bring themselves to the point of doing their natural duty and reproducing natuarlly - If they can not bare to touch and couple with the opposite sex - then breeding and marriage privledges should be denied - For God's sake - if you are gay get married to the opposite sex - gay men and woman entered traditional relationships in the past - it was common - and they kept their lusts private and in the closet - Look back into history - or our not to distant past - butch chicks got married - and so did feminine males - and they mangaged to have children...and same sex lovers on the side. The old way was better for everyone.

This makes no sense. Marriage is basically a legal institution. In all other respects it's symbolic. And there is nothing in the law about having to reproduce or not if you're married. Should infertile people not be allowed to marry?

I find the whole gay marriage debate silly.