Supreme Court OKs Same Sex Marriages

[realwannabe]

In terms of civil union:

Well, I am of the position that civil union cant stand the test of the Charter. The high court states in its decision that ' Marriage and civil unions are two distinct ways in which couples can express their commitment and structure their legal obligations. Civil unions are a relationship short of marriage and are, therefore, provincially regulated. '

And what about other countries and states that already have legalised same sex marriage? They will surely recognise the legal status of these same sex married Canadian couples. And i also heard that some counties in New York recognize legally married same sex couples. Marriage is the only word that has legal meanning in this world, most countries might not recognise it. But one thing for sure, civil union is worthless outside of Canada whereas Marriage has more legal power.

The chance that a Canadian marriage will be recognized in a foreign country is a lot greater than the likelihood that a Canadian civil union would be.

[August1991]

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, gays have had all those "economic entitlements" for several years now through "civil unions". About 70% of Canadians support the idea of civil unions for gays and lesbians.

The use of the word "marriage" is the issue and at this point, it is a question of recognition.

----

The entitlements you refer to such as survivor benefits, health coverage are offered primarily by private insurance schemes for which people pay premiums. The CPP is the main State insurance scheme affected by gay civil unions.

That begs the question: What do children have to do with CPP payments for surviving spouses?

[August1991]

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, do you have evidence of a private business that has been punished for refusing service to someone? There is much smoke about this but little fire. Labour tribunals don't count.

Discrimination by the State is treated differently from discrimination by a corporation or a private individual.

[Guest eureka]

I have not followed this discussion but a quick reading suggests that there are a few points that are not being addressed.

First, the Charter does not give any rights. It merely affirms what were existing rights. There is some reason to think that it actually restricts some rights as opponents feared it would do at the beginning.

Second, "gay" marriage is not anywhere near a reality. The Court response to the reference means that, if the federal government should amend the definition of marriage, such a change would still be open to challenge.

Personally, I do not accept that this is a "Rights" issue at all. The idea of a Right is being lost in the clamour. If it is a "Right," then it is absurd to claim that the rights of traditional marrieds are not watered down. It is strictly an economic issue that has other possible answers.

Third, much has been written about the aspect of religios freedom and discrimination. Much is said about separation of Church and State and government keeping religion out of government out of religion or vice versa.

That is not what religious freedom is or the Separation is. There is no prohibition at all against religiosity in government, The prohibition is against government suppressing religious tolerance in any way or promoting any one form of religion. There is nothing that says religious conscience must be suspended.

There is a discrimination against religious freedom inherent in the legalisation of SSM. It is that those who will be condemned by law to officiate at ceremomies or register the result are ordered to act aginst their conscience or religion if asked to perform SSM. I believe I have read that, in some provinces, already some JP's have been forced out of their positions.

Fourth, there have been the usual comments that those heterosexual couples who oppose SSM are "insecure" in their marriages. Oh the power of emotive slogans. No opposition to what was, until recently, a small but very vociferous movement can be based on real beliefs and on conscience. If the clamour is loud enough and persistent enough, it must be in the right.

[realwannabe]

Same sex marriage is no where near the reality? Tell that to the 3000 same sex couples who were LEGALLY MARRIED throughout the 6 provinces and 1 terrority which already have their traditional definition of marriage struck down by the courts.

You get real.

[shackwacky]

I have not followed this discussion but a quick reading suggests that there are a few points that are not being addressed.

It's a fairly serious thread, maybe you should do more than a "quick reading" before you weigh in. Unless, of course, you are just here to hear yourself speak.

That is not what religious freedom is or the Separation is. There is no prohibition at all against religiosity in government, The prohibition is against government suppressing religious tolerance in any way or promoting any one form of religion. There is nothing that says religious conscience must be suspended.

There is a discrimination against religious freedom inherent in the legalisation of SSM. It is that those who will be condemned by law to officiate at ceremomies or register the result are ordered to act aginst their conscience or religion if asked to perform SSM. I believe I have read that, in some provinces, already some JP's have been forced out of their positions

Bla bla bla bla...do you actually have an opinion here or are you fishing? I have read, and I think if I have to quote my source it will be the same source as you, that I have heard that there won't be any JP's forced out of their positions. Therefore, no discrimination against religious freedom. Right?

I am a Christian.....okay now I will duck. And I know that Christianity as I have been taught it will not ever accept homosexuality. So I have to decide to leave my church, which I will do without a problem, unless and untill my church decides that we are all equal. Today - saturday december 10 - our pastor phoned us and was telling us that our beliefs were under attack and that we had to speak out against this abomination. I have gay relatives, loving caring been-together-forever people, far be it from me to meddle in that!! They are doing better than me in my hetero christian marriage match made in heaven. So we have to give our pastor a wake up call, we told him so, and apperently, this was not on the agenda.

do you live in a small town? have you ever tried to move or modify the status quo? this is frikkin hard, you are up againsnt gramma, and everyone love s her.

[Guest eureka]

If this is a "fairly serious thread," then take it seriously. Try to deal with the points I raised: that I raised because they seem to be buried under the emotionalism that dominates this story.

[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, do you have evidence of a private business that has been punished for refusing service to someone? There is much smoke about this but little fire. Labour tribunals don't count.

Discrimination by the State is treated differently from discrimination by a corporation or a private individual.

Printer fined

[PocketRocket]

 

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.

Fair enough. No benefits for any couple who does not have kids. At least it's an unbiased stand.

 

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.

Again, this statement is fair and unbiased. It discriminates equally against anyone who does not have kids.

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.

Actually, yes, I do consider it an argument. Spousal rights are given to people who have a spouse. If you're single, you don't have a spouse, so how can you enjoy spousal benefits. Where is the spouse who will benefit from them???

But there is a contradiction here. You said they will be eligible when they marry someone of the opposite sex, but earlier you said they should only get benefits if they have kids. Which way do you want it???

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.

No, that would not be the conclusion. You can have sex with many people, but you can only be married to one, at least under current law. Sex and marriage, even common-law marriage, are two totally different things.

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.   

Well, let's look at the words here. "Spousal Benefits" Not "Sibling Benefits" or "Parental Benefits".

If you want to marry your sibling, or one of your parents, then hey, knock yourself out Billy-Bob. Whatever turns your crank.

If you can manage to find someone who'll perform the ceremony, and you can get the wedding legally recognized, then the sibling/parent who would then be your spouse would be entitled to spousal benefits.

But you are again contradicting yourself here. That statement about no spousal benefits shared by two people who do not have kids. Now you're suggesting that there should be spousal benefits transferrable to a sibling or parent.

Unless you've produced progeny with that sibling or parent, then this suggestion goes against your first statement.

Make up your mind.

But the guy who "blows you now and then" is not asking for benefits. It's the guy who marries you, and blows you and only you, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, who's asking for the benefits. You're comparison is like saying that some tart I pick up in a bar and have occassional casual sex with is entitled to benefits.

That is not what the Gay rights activists are asking for.

Try keep it relevant.

[August1991]

From the Link above posted by Argus:

Ray Brillinger, an Archives official, filed a human rights complaint alleging Brockie discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation. A board of inquiry agreed with Brillinger and fined the printer $5,000. Brockie appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court.

This was a Human Rights complaint of which, in Canada now, there are literally hundreds if not thousands. Human Rights Commissions in each province are backlogged.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission own web site describes it this way:

Bluntly stated, human rights in Canada now depend on the "lottery of litigation."

CHRC

"Generally, we don't advise our members to use the commission," says Sandi Howell, an equal opportunity officer at CUPE. She adds that alternate resolution methods such as a grievance process are often more appropriate and speedier.

Carleton

I mention this because the human rights tribunals have become a joke, or another way to get "free money" if you are very, very patient and very, very litigious. The wait will only get longer in the future.

I'm not saying this is good but neither is it a threat to western civilization. I think we got involved in this nonsense because of the US and its attempt to deal with blacks, slavery and all that.

But getting back to the original point, has there ever been a Supreme Court decision ordering a private individual to desist from a so-called "discriminatory act"? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious to know.)

[Guest eureka]

I don't think the question is answerable as posed, August. A private person acting in a purely private capacity cannot be held to any rights obligation.

However, whenever his activities impings on public policy or affect the rights of another in any way, then he can be called to account. There are such cases though many of the possible examples are dealt with under ordinary law.

[Black Dog]

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.

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?

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

So what makes you think the average Canadian has any more honesty, integrity or intellect than those "academics and judges" you revile?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

As I said above, religious freedoms are not trumped in the case of gay marriage. Period.

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.

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.

Further, just about every argument the state can raise against incestuous marriage has similarly been dealt with and dismissed by the courts

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".

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.

Yet there have been homosexuals as long as there have been people. It's not a hereditary trait like eye colour.

[Argus]

I don't think the question is answerable as posed, August. A private person acting in a purely private capacity cannot be held to any rights obligation.

Yet. There are many who would like to change that. You can be arrested for making racist, sexist, bigoted or homophobic statements in some European countries, notably France and the UK.

[Newfie Canadian]

While it's a provincial matter, it's pertinent to this thread so I'll put it here.

NL court has cleared the way for SSM, making it the 7th province to do so.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...8443?hub=Canada