Supreme Court OKs Same Sex Marriages

[August1991]

The state is not saying no to same sex marriage, the state is say yes to same sex marriage. And same sex marriage is already legal in most of Canada.

*Sigh*, realwannabe, that was the whole issue and the reason we are discussing this.

In the past, the State did not do this. It treated a union/contract between two people of the same sex differently from a union/contract between two people of different sexes. Apparently, in the future, both situations will be treated by the State identically - including the use of the word "marriage".

Now then, in the past, the Christian Heritage Savings Coop may have refused to open a joint account for you and me because we were the same sex, but the Bank of Montreal across the street wanted our bucks and probably would have done it.

Can the Christian Heritage Savings Coop continue to refuse us (and admittedly lose the extra business we bring)?

[realwannabe]

The state is not saying no to same sex marriage, the state is say yes to same sex marriage. And same sex marriage is already legal in most of Canada.

*Sigh*, realwannabe, that was the whole issue and the reason we are discussing this.

In the past, the State did not do this. It treated a union/contract between two people of the same sex differently from a union/contract between two people of different sexes. Apparently, in the future, both situations will be treated by the State identically - including the use of the word "marriage".

Now then, in the past, the Christian Heritage Savings Coop may have refused to open a joint account for you and me because we were the same sex, but the Bank of Montreal across the street wanted our bucks and probably would have done it.

Can the Christian Heritage Savings Coop continue to refuse us (and admittedly lose the extra business we bring)?

But why are we talking about the banks?

I rather you say what you are really trying to say and made it relevant to this discussion of same sex marriage.

The bank have always been allowed to have whatever policies they wish to have, if some private companies want to stand on their principals and only accept "straight" customers, thats their business and they CAN do that. (or can they? I dont care frankly, because that is so off topic its not even funny)

Now i know you are trying to imply something else with this example, i am just not sure what exactly.

Churches would not have to be forced to marry same sex couples, people will continue to hold onto their discriminatory beliefs but in a matter of public institutions regulated by the government, discrimination cannot be continued and allowed because we see this as a "right" issue and homosexuals are included as part of the civil society. There are many things that are legal and that the churches do not agree with , and thats too bad. This has been the direction of the modern society for the past 100 years.

[ticker]

I am waiting for the feds to say we won't force churches to perform SSM ; by the way remember the special tax status you once had..... we are not forcing you ... do you want to play ball or loose it.

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

   Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad

enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

Just give it time. When Trudeau set up his constitution it was just gays can do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom now it is marriage. It is only a matter of time before that extends into the churches being pressured to prform SSM to win favor of some federal policy.

Russia was told they didn't have to sign Kyoto... they just had to play ball and sign onto it if they wanted to see any of the EU benefits in Europe.

[realwannabe]

But why should the Catholic churches receive special tax credit in the first place???

If all religions are treated equally, theres nothing the government can do to favor one over another.

I am a homosexual and i personally dont give a CRAP if some churches refuse to recognize my same sex marriage. I just want my right to marry! (I wouldnt waste my stupid time trying to get an anti-gay priest to conduct my marriage, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! )

Some church still dont allow female priests, right? I dont see any feminists suing the churches for discrimination. I dont see any churches FORCED to premit re-marriage and divorces have been happenning for what, 40 years??

I am so SICK and TIRED of this baseless fear and argument.

It looks as if there is really no real argument to oppose same sex marriage.

[August1991]

I am so SICK and TIRED of this baseless fear and argument.

On this, I agree with you. Ordinary people should have the chance to figure out how to have an ordinary life, whatever that is.

This same sex marriage story is basically that. It's a question of respect. But it can't be forced.

[maplesyrup]

Now that same sex marriage has arrived, what is next on Canada's agenda?

Do you think it will be polygamist marriages? I think it just might be and why not? Who cares what other people do in their own bedroom? I don't know, and I don't want to know.

[maplesyrup]

What gay marriage ruling didn't say

Intersting article - 1929, eh!

I supppose you hear what you want to see and hear.

[Argus]

I have yet to see any substantial reason why we should limit the rights of homosexuals to marriage, if one can give a substantial argument, than maybe we shouldnt allow same sex marriage.  But this is not the case.

I'm afraid I'm not the one to make that case as I really don't feel passionately one way or the other. However, as I don't believe this is a case involving human rights I believe it is something we, as a society ought to decide, rather than having it dictated to us by academics and judges. Too many societal changes happen lately without any desire of the people for said changes, carried out by arrogant politicians or judges with a penchant for social engineering.

And given the widespread lack of intellect, honesty and integrity of our politicians and judges that is a frightening sight to witness.

There never was any great outcry to change the definition of marriage; rather the contrary, in fact. Most Canadians still do not want same-sex marriage. A majority appears willing to accept some sort of legal recognition of same-sex unions, however, though that majority is largely due to disproportioniate enthusiasm in Quebec and, to a lesser extent, BC.

Btw, all the discriminations you mentioned involve money, the Charter never promises economic justice or equality.

What do you think this is about, if not money? Pension rights, spousal benefits, inheritances, etc.

[Argus]

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

It is clear from the wording that the intent was to forbid states from interfering with the traditional form of marriage which begat families. Unfortunately for them gay unions do not lead to the founding of families. I suppose at some point in the future when you can clone yourself and produce children that way things could change, but at the present gay unions lead to nothing.

In fact, my sympathy for those demanding gay unions is minimal because I feel the whole history of marriage was intended to join men and women together in order to ensure that the children resulting from their union would be properly taken care of. As gay unions produce no children there is no reason for marriage: religious or civil.

I'll go further. Gays have no business in deriving economic benefits from their "marriage". Those benefits are historically intended to help with the raising of children. Traditionally, the husband worked, while the wife stayed home to raise the children. That is the entire reason why benefits are transferable from the "bread winner" to his family. If we allow those benefits to be transferred in the cases of gay unions then we are introducing another discriminatory practice - against singles. Why should gays be able to obtain and transfer benefits to others when singles cannot when the entire reason behind those transfers is eliminated by their inability to procreate?

[Argus]

That is exactly the issue.  Gays want to get married and say they are married.  The State at present is saying no to them.  The State is discriminating between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

But in what way is state recognition important other than economic? They want access to medical benefits, pension rights, etc. which were designed to help heterosexuals in the raising of their children. Homosexuals have no moral right to share in such benefits as their union will produce no offspring.

[Argus]

You guys keep repeating how the churches would be forced to perform wedding, the Supreme court already very clearly said it wont, and you guys still keep pushing on this meaningless and baseless argument , get a grip.

To begin with, no one who has ever followed legal arguments has much faith in the ruling of today standing the test of time. Nor in the promises of government. Remember that it was only about two years ago the same government was introducing a reformed marriage act which promised in its text that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman. It took them, what, a year, to completely abandon that principal?

Churches won't be "forced" to marry same sex couples, eh? But wait, they are now discriminating against homosexuals, and that is, by the judgement of every court, illegal. Therefore they have to be punished in some way, don't they? The suggestion by a gay activist that churches which refuse to marry gays have their taxation status reviewed and be forced to pay taxes would easily get around any ruling that they can't be "forced" to marry gays. What do you think the yearly taxes are on a cathedral, or a school?

There are other aspects to it, as well. We witnessed the case out west were a practicing homosexual teacher was fired by a privately operated religious school, and the courts found the church which ran that school acted illegally. We have found other cases where religious people have had their rights ignored because their beliefs cause them to act in a discriminatory fashion towards homosexuals. The courts have been fairly consistent in ignoring their religious objections in favour of non-discrimination in the past. There is no reason to believe that will not be strengthened by legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

[Argus]

Allowing same sex marriage IS protecing minorities from the majority. It does so by allowing same sex couples to share the same rights and responsibilites as any heterosexual married couples.

Such as?

[Argus]

The bank have always been allowed to have whatever policies they wish to have, if some private companies want to stand on their principals and only accept "straight" customers, thats their business and they CAN do that. (or can they? I dont care frankly, because that is so off topic its not even funny)

.

No, in fact, they can't.

[Argus]

But why should the Catholic churches receive special tax credit in the first place???

If all religions are treated equally, theres nothing the government can do to favor one over another.

All religious institutions have tax free status for charitable purposes, and in recognition of the fact they are non-profit institutions which generally have a positive affect on society.

I am a homosexual and i personally dont give a CRAP if some churches refuse to recognize my same sex marriage. I just want my right to marry! (I wouldnt waste my stupid time trying to get an anti-gay priest to conduct my marriage, GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! )

I bet that you wouldn't seek employment as a teacher in a fundamentalist school and sign a contract agreeing to abide by their moral and religious viewpoints - including abstaining from sex outside marriage either, would you? But another homosexual did, and when he was fired for being a practicing homosoexual he sued and won. Even though the idea of a practicing homosexual teaching in a fundamentalist school is kind of absurd, the courts still felt the church's right to have teachers setting a proper moral tone for their students was unimportant next to the right of a homosexual to work wherever he wanted.

[Argus]

Now that same sex marriage has arrived, what is next on Canada's agenda?

Do you think it will be polygamist marriages? I think it just might be and why not? Who cares what other people do in their own bedroom? I don't know, and I don't want to know.

The proponents of same-sex marriage tend to get very upset with the suggestion that polygamy is next. But it obviously is. Our legal system is based on precedent. Once a precedent has been established and accepted in one case it is equally valid in other similar cases.

Every argument the state could raise against polygamous marriage has already been introduced and rejected by the courts in the case of same-sex marriage. The precedent is established. Further, just about every argument the state can raise against incestuous marriage has similarly been dealt with and dismissed by the courts.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

As gay unions produce no children there is no reason for marriage: religious or civil.

I think that largely it is a question of 'legitimizing' homosexuality, and partly because of the tax implications of civil marriage.

It has been estimated, (and I think this number is fair enough) that 10% of people are gay. Except in China, where 'Homosexuality is not admitted to exist'. Legal charges are brought up under 'offensive behaviour'. In Saudi Arabia, 'Homosexuality is tolerated if practiced discreetly, however maximum legal sentence is beheading'.

Homosexuality is across the board for humans, and most of the arguments against are strictly religious.

I don't believe that any church should be legislated to recognize it if that is not their wish. However, as for civil unions, I don't see a problem. Just as 'common law' marriages are recognized, so too, should gay marriages. It means that not only property rights and taxes are treated the same for 'life-long sexual partners', but also that sexual orientation (gay or not gay) is not a judgement of one's character.

[Argus]

It has been estimated, (and I think this number is fair enough) that 10% of people are gay.

Although gays and gay rights activistis still tend to cling to this number it was discredited some time ago. The real number is probably closer to 1%-2%, which, frankly, is more in line with reality. If one out of ten people were gay we'd all know a lot more of them. Hell, 10% is about the support the NDP has often fallen to. :-P How come there isn't a gay political party (granted the NDP comes close).

Homosexuality is across the board for humans, and most of the arguments against are strictly religious.

Not being religious I won't make those arguments. I will observe, however, that there tends to be higher rates of suicide and depression among gays, more promiscuity, particularly among male homosexuals, and of course, more STDs as a result. I would also observe that it can hardly be in society's continuing existence to have more homosexuals as homosexuals tend not to have children - at least those who are honest with themselves and their potential partners.

[PocketRocket]

Churches won't be "forced" to marry same sex couples, eh? But wait, they are now discriminating against homosexuals, and that is, by the judgement of every court, illegal. Therefore they have to be punished in some way, don't they? The suggestion by a gay activist that churches which refuse to marry gays have their taxation status reviewed and be forced to pay taxes would easily get around any ruling that they can't be "forced" to marry gays. What do you think the yearly taxes are on a cathedral, or a school?

There are other aspects to it, as well. We witnessed the case out west were a practicing homosexual teacher was fired by a privately operated religious school, and the courts found the church which ran that school acted illegally.

Regarding your first point, churches have "Freedom of Religion" to fall back on.

Churches do discriminate, yes, but not necessarily against gays, but against those who do not follow the tenets of the church.

For example, a Catholic church may refuse to marry an Anglican couple, unless that couple agrees to change their religion and raise their children within the boundaries and tenets of the Catholic church.

This I know about because, being raised Catholic, when I got married, my first choice was to be married within the Catholic church.

My wife-to-be however, was NOT Catholic.

We were told that we would have to take a course on Catholicism, marriage, and that my wife would have to make the change to Catholicism.

Discrimination??? Absolutely, But not strictly against gays, but against non-Catholics.

Kinda like a club, if you aren't a member, you don't get in.

Your other point is a bit of a different case.

If the teacher was using his/her position to proselytise on the joys of being gay, which would be against the tenets of the religion under which the school is run, then that would be grounds for firing.

But, if said teacher was NOT obviously gay, and was NOT using the classroom as a forum for discussion on gay rights or anything, then firing the teacher would indeed be disriminatory.

Our labor laws make clear the fact that if you're qualified and able to do the job, then the employer must show a good reason for firing you.

[PocketRocket]

Allowing same sex marriage IS protecing minorities from the majority. It does so by allowing same sex couples to share the same rights and responsibilites as any heterosexual married couples.

Such as?

Well, where to begin???

After getting married, my wife and I realized that as an unmarried couple, we had far more advantages in terms of taxes and stuff. I can't give any solid details as doing the taxes was not my job. Suffice to say that getting married does not pay off at tax-time unless you've got kids. For two people who both work, being married actually seems to carry a financial penalty in the eyes of Revenue Canada.

In this regard, allowing gays to marry would be, in a small way, to everyone's benefit, as they would then be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us, and there would be a few more bucks going into the tax coffers.

As for rights, many companies carry pension plans wherein if the pension recipient dies, then the company goes on paying the pension to the surviving spouse.

Currently, gay couples do not enjoy this benefit.

Also, estate planning. If one spouse dies, then all common spousal property is legally inherited by the surviving spouse, unless there is a will stating otherwise.

But in the case of a gay couple, where one of them owns a house, if the homeowner dies, and there is no will specifically granting ownership of the house to the gay partner, then the house is either inherited by the dead partner's next of kin, or reverts to property of the state.

Too many others to mention, but think of any legal benefit OR obligation that automatically comes with marriage, and these are all things which gay couples are being denied.

[PocketRocket]

Dear Argus,

As gay unions produce no children there is no reason for marriage: religious or civil.

I think that largely it is a question of 'legitimizing' homosexuality, and partly because of the tax implications of civil marriage.

If I may add to this, what law states that the only reason for getting married is to have kids???

How many widows/widowers/divorcees get married later in life with no intention of ever having kids together???

Hell, how many marriages has Elizabeth Taylor gone through which produced no progeny???

She's been married what, 8 times???? 9???

In this day and age, I don't believe that the majority of people who get married do so after having a discussion like this "Hey, let's get married so we can have kids", "Gee, okay, after all, we can't have any kids if we're not married".

Sorry, ARGUS, but that particular statement was a non-starter.

[PocketRocket]

I'll go further. Gays have no business in deriving economic benefits from their "marriage". Those benefits are historically intended to help with the raising of children. Traditionally, the husband worked, while the wife stayed home to raise the children. That is the entire reason why benefits are transferable from the "bread winner" to his family. If we allow those benefits to be transferred in the cases of gay unions then we are introducing another discriminatory practice - against singles. Why should gays be able to obtain and transfer benefits to others when singles cannot when the entire reason behind those transfers is eliminated by their inability to procreate?

Sorry, I didn't see this one before I posted my last few. I've been working my backwards from the last post, but to address this.....

I don't think this holds water for a couple reasons. First off, in this day and age, many MANY people marry without intent to raise kids. Both work for a living. Both have pension arrangements. What makes them any more deserving of spousal benefits than a gay couple???

Second, among those couples who do have kids, very few are putting out 5 or 6 kids or more. These days, a family with more than 2 kids is pretty rare. A lot of the time, the kids are grown up, moved out, and have jobs of their own by the time the parents are in their mid-40's.

So, in a home in which there are no longer any hungry little mouths to feed, should the parents be disqualified from spousal benefits???

I didn't think so.

You cannot use kids as the be-all-end-all argument for the right to get married. If you do, then anyone who does not intend to have kids should be disqualified from eligibility for marriage, and any married couple who fails to have kids, should have their spousal rights and status stripped from them.

Under your argument in this post, else would be not only unfair, but hypocritical.

As to why singles do not have spousal benefit-transfer rights, well that's simple, they are SINGLE.

As soon as they get married, or even live together as a couple for a prescribed period and become common-law, then they get the same benefits.

[realwannabe]

oh oh oh. Where do i begin?

Homosexual couples already won the right to adoption for a looooooooooong time. So they can and DO have children.

I am not about to convince you why once again the churches wont be forced to perform gay marriage since they are not forced to perform re-marriage either.

I have already had this argument many times, so i will just copy and paste my previous arguments.

One thing i will respond to is the slippery slope argument

Also, the charter considers sexual orientation as a possible basis for discrimination. For example, a persons colout, creed, religion, race, sex, or any other constitutionall protected attribute can be considered a ground for discrimination.

Whereas people are not naturally inclined to have polygamous relationship, and the charter does not consider discrimination for marriage can be based on numbers, or amily relationships, or species

Civil union does not work because:

But civil union is not a federal responsibility, the federal government would have no power over that and there would be no point of this discussion. Only marriage is recognized by other countries, not civil unions. Only marriage is recognized by the constitution as a federal responsibility, not civil unions. Every province will have to pass their own seperate laws to have that achieved. This could take forever since it might not even be possible to have all provinces to agree on this issue and define civil union in the exact same way as other provinces.

And this is a moot point anyways, because most of the provinces have already had their marriage definitions changed to include homosexual couples. Nothing the House of Common can do can change that really since it gave up its right to appeal

[Argus]

I don't think this holds water for a couple reasons. First off, in this day and age, many MANY people marry without intent to raise kids. Both work for a living. Both have pension arrangements. What makes them any more deserving of spousal benefits than a gay couple???

In my opinion they are not deserving of spousal benefits and should not receive them.

You will see, therefore, why I am unenthusiastic about these entitlements now going to gays.

Second, among those couples who do have kids, very few are putting out 5 or 6 kids or more. These days, a family with more than 2 kids is pretty rare. A lot of the time, the kids are grown up, moved out, and have jobs of their own by the time the parents are in their mid-40's.

My point was to raise the issue of where these historical entitlements came from and why they are in place. In my opinion it is inequitable and those without children, who aren't subjected to the addional cost, and drain on budgets, who don't have a spouse forced to curtail her career or stay at home should not be eligible.

As to why singles do not have spousal benefit-transfer rights, well that's simple, they are SINGLE.

Do you consider that an argument? I could as easily say the reason gays don't have spousal benefits is they're GAY. The moment they become straight and marry someone from the opposite sex they'll become eligible.

What you are saying is that the old reasons no longer hold true in many cases. But the obvious conclusion is that people can get a very valuable, very expensive entitlement because they have sex with the same person.

You can't get such benefits and transfer them to a needy parent or sibling, but you can to a guy who blows you now and then. Phhht.

[Argus]

oh oh oh. Where do i begin?

Homosexual couples already won the right to adoption for a looooooooooong time. So they can and DO have children.

A fraction of a fraction of a percent. Most agencies are reluctant to give children to a gay couple as it has been statistically proven that children are better off with an opposite sex family.

Civil union does not work because:

But civil union is not a federal responsibility, the federal government would have no power over that and there would be no point of this discussion. Only marriage is recognized by other countries, not civil unions.

This is all nonsense. The majority of Canadians would support gay civil unions, but do not support gay marriage. And matters of responsibility can be attended to. As for international recognition - spare me - nations which do not recognize gay marriage are not going to recognize ours, whatever we choose to call it.

[realwannabe]

oh oh oh. Where do i begin?

Homosexual couples already won the right to adoption for a looooooooooong time. So they can and DO have children.

A fraction of a fraction of a percent. Most agencies are reluctant to give children to a gay couple as it has been statistically proven that children are better off with an opposite sex family.

Civil union does not work because:

But civil union is not a federal responsibility, the federal government would have no power over that and there would be no point of this discussion. Only marriage is recognized by other countries, not civil unions.

This is all nonsense. The majority of Canadians would support gay civil unions, but do not support gay marriage. And matters of responsibility can be attended to. As for international recognition - spare me - nations which do not recognize gay marriage are not going to recognize ours, whatever we choose to call it.

Any sources on that children under heterosexual family are better off than children raised in a same sex household? I like to see that.

Only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of homosexual family have children? I like to see a source for that again.

But so homosexual families do have children , right? Good. I am a homosexual, i want to get married and I want to have children and i have many homosexual friends that also want children and want to get married. I dont see myself as a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the homosexual population.

The majority of Canadians do not support WHAT?

57 percent of Canadians do not see same sex marriage as a threat to heterosexual family.

According to most major polls, a slight majority of Canadians DO support same sex marriages, at the very least, it is evenly split. So dont tell me the "silent" majority do not support same sex marriage. Thats just propaganda.