Supreme Court OKs Same Sex Marriages

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm not sure a culture [Quebec] so self centred they refuse to commit to marriage so the parties can split up more easily in the event they are unhappy is one which ought to be held up as a shining light of the future.

There is a mistaken assumption working in your thought there. If I'm not mistaken, Quebec legislation has virtually done away with much difference in the obligations between splitting married and unmarried spouses.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass.

SSM will not be imposed on any religious groups.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

And what do YOU know about it? Frankly I can't imagine why they'd bother, especially since it is clear that religious freedom would prevent it.

[realwannabe]

The numbers might jump around for a bit, but the legislation for SSM will pass.

SSM will not be imposed on any religious groups.

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

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.

And i dont think any certain religion should be subjected to special tax status.

[ticker]

realwannabe...welcome to mapleleafweb.

Thank you for a heathy and informative dose of reality, which is often not very apparent here.

/375

realwannabe give a conservative spin then MS would tell you to get off his board.

[Black Dog]

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.

[realwannabe]

realwannabe...welcome to mapleleafweb.

Thank you for a heathy and informative dose of reality, which is often not very apparent here. 

/375

realwannabe give a conservative spin then MS would tell you to get off his board.

lol. Funny guys.

[maplesyrup]

A Marriage Made in Heaven

Not one good reason to oppose SSM, eh!

One of the pollsters in the paper this morning says that if PM Martin supports this SSM issue it should help him in the popularity contest. For most people it is not an issue that will change people's voting preferences. Conservatives are against it but Martin wasn't going to get their votes anyways.

[Argus]

Marriage is not a "human right".

Argus, the State should treat people of the same sex in a marriage identically to people of opposite sex, including the use of the same word "marriage" for both situations.

It is this right which is in question.

The state has never treated people equally and it is unlikely to ever begin doing so. Let's get real here. Different situations draw different responses from the state. For the state is nothing more than the representative of the will of the people, and people are notoriously fickle creatures.

Torturing someone violates human rights. Refusing to call a same-sex relationship marriage does not. Further, I am among those who has not the slightest doubt that the reasons given for accepting gay marriage will serve equally in forcing the state to recognize polygamous marriage, as well. Every reason you could possibly use to deny it has been used for gay marriage and the courts and government have said they are unimportant.

[maplesyrup]

Why can't women have more than one husband anyway?

[Argus]

If you think the gays don't already have plans to challenge the RC church and others on discrimination grounds for refusing to marry gays you're dumber than your postings would indicate.

ANy evidence? Proof? Or just paranoia?

You don't think there's room in the world for insight? For an intelligent prediction based on observable behaviour patterns? In any event, it's funny but after I posted this there was an article in the paper, by Michael Coren, I believe, where he mentioned the demand of one of the leaders of the gay rights movement for punishment of Churches which refuse to marry gays. Just wait for it. I predict that within the year we will see lawsuits against the state from polygamous couples wanting to be married, and from a gay couple against one or another church for refusing to marry them.

[maplesyrup]

I suppose this is going to used as a reason to oppose ssm in the US - no one denied Brittany Spears being allowed to be married for 55 hours, did, they?

Months after the start of gay marriage, the divorces begin

[Argus]

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse.

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.

So what? You could also say that the state treats single people differently than married people - in effect, discriminating against them. You can obviously also say the state, using various means and rights tests, treats natives differently than everyone else, treats minorities differently than the majority, treats the poor differently than the rich, or the middle class, or even the working poor.

Why is it if you are a poor man on welfare the state will pay all your medical bills, your prescriptions, eyeglasses, your legal bills, the whole shebang, but if you are a dirt poor person who works for a living the state will treat you much much less generously? Discrimination, obviously.

Why does the state pay for all the drug bills of seniors, even rich seniors, but not for anyone else - except those on welfare, that is? More discrimination.

This society is built on discrimination of various kinds, and discrimination is incorporated into government. We might as well admit it.

[maplesyrup]

So what if same-sex couples want to get married in the RC Church - it is a private matter between the couple and the church isn't it? If one does not like the RC policies, change churches. If they wish to sue that is a private lawsuit between the church and the couple. Just because one launches a court action, does NOT mean one will win it.

[Argus]

I'm not sure a culture [Quebec] so self centred they refuse to commit to marriage  so the parties can split up more easily in the event they are unhappy is one which ought to be held up as a shining light of the future.

There is a mistaken assumption working in your thought there. If I'm not mistaken, Quebec legislation has virtually done away with much difference in the obligations between splitting married and unmarried spouses.

I'm not neccesarily speaking of simple legal obligations. An honest to God marriage carries a sense of commitment, permanency and obligation which simply living together lacks. It is the difference between renting a house and buying it.

[realwannabe]

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

For the possiblity of polyamous marriages being legalised, the court has to first recognize that "numbers" constitutes a ground for discrimination. Its totally different things with regard to sexual orientation. One doesnt lead to another or vice versa.

[realwannabe]

Marriage is not a "human right". Every loud pressure group likes to use that term about whatever it is they're being denied, from more generous welfare to having sex with their horse.

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.

So what? You could also say that the state treats single people differently than married people - in effect, discriminating against them. You can obviously also say the state, using various means and rights tests, treats natives differently than everyone else, treats minorities differently than the majority, treats the poor differently than the rich, or the middle class, or even the working poor.

Why is it if you are a poor man on welfare the state will pay all your medical bills, your prescriptions, eyeglasses, your legal bills, the whole shebang, but if you are a dirt poor person who works for a living the state will treat you much much less generously? Discrimination, obviously.

Why does the state pay for all the drug bills of seniors, even rich seniors, but not for anyone else - except those on welfare, that is? More discrimination.

This society is built on discrimination of various kinds, and discrimination is incorporated into government. We might as well admit it.

Discrimination , of course, exists. But the matter is always determinnig if benefits of certain discrimination outweights the disadvantages. Car insurance discriminates males over females for example by charging males more.

And the Charter does allow the state to practise discrminiation if it is within reasonable limit and the benefits outweights the disadvantages of violating a certain right or that limiting a right is pressing and substantial.

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.

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

[realwannabe]

And just because people file a lawsuit , it doesnt mean they will win. Priests have been refusing to marry couples who have had divorces for years.

[August1991]

The state has never treated people equally and it is unlikely to ever begin doing so. Let's get real here. Different situations draw different responses from the state. For the state is nothing more than the representative of the will of the people, and people are notoriously fickle creatures.

Torturing someone violates human rights. Refusing to call a same-sex relationship marriage does not. Further, I among those who has not the slightest doubt that the reasons given for accepting gay marriage will serve equally in forcing the state to recognize polygamous marriage, as well. Every reason you could possibly use to deny it has been used for gay marriage and the courts and government have said they are unimportant.

Argus, I was using the example of the United States where the Bill of Rights specifies in clear language the rights of the individual which the State will not infringe upon.

The reason for these rights is that the State has monopoly power and the majority can trample on the legitimate desires of a minority. Ideally, a Bill of Rights binds the State and no one else.

Our relations with each other in private are our own affair because these are entirely voluntary. A Bill of Rights should not apply in these matters and in the US, to my knowledge, it doesn't.

If a Church chooses not to marry two people, that should be the end of the matter since it is a private affair. The State however should not be able to discriminate in this way.

----

With that said, the US government can discriminate on many other matters not protected by the Bill of Rights. It treats poor people differently from rich people, old people differently from young people and so on.

In Canada, I fear we have made a "mess" of things. We have a Charter of Rights which ressembles a Bill of Rights but it's grafted onto a common law, parliamentary tradition with an explicit constitution. (BTW, an explicit constitution and Bill of Rights are entirely in the tradition of a Civil Code.) We have no simple way to amend either the constitution or the Charter.

It appears now that if the Supreme Court and the Parliament agree, they can interpret or amend implicitly the Charter anyway they want. Moreover, the Charter can be used by the State to infringe on private affairs.

IOW, our legal system is a dog's breakfast. This is not new. In Canada, the federal government defines marriage and divorce but then the actual marriage contract - and consequences of divorce - are defined provincially. Go figure.

----

Lastly, while I happen to be in favour of same sex marriage, I can certainly understand the trepidation or base refusal of others. There are more Chinese speaking people in Canada than there are gays. Should the State treat Chinese speakers identically to English and French speakers?

Discrimination , of course, exists. But the matter is always determinnig if benefits of certain discrimination outweights the disadvantages. Car insurance discriminates males over females for example by charging males more.

Realwannabe, you discriminate in your choice of friends, choice of home, choice of employer and where you do your grocery shopping. In your private affairs, no one is going to force you to buy your bread from a particular store if you don't want to. Hence, you are free to be a racist or a sexist or a homophobe in your choices. I see no reason why others (excepting the State) should not have the same freedom as you. Indeed, you should have the right to discriminate and choose only lesbian-managed businesses and GMO-free food.

[realwannabe]

Duh, because the state belongs to the public. The state provides legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. It represents everyone, i only represent myself. What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. The action of the state always go beyond itself and has far reaching consquences on all citizens. How ridiculous.

[realwannabe]

And Marriage is a right.

Canada is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsm in which Article 16 states:

(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.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Notice Canada agrees that getting married is considered a matter of right. Nevermind that the U.N doesnt consider same sex marriage. NEVERTHELESS.

[August1991]

Duh, because the state belongs to the public. The state provides legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. It represents everyone, i only represent myself. What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. The action of the state always go beyond itself and has far reaching consquences on all citizens. How ridiculous.

You've lost me here.

The State has the right to imprison you; no other institution has that power.

The State does not provide legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. A Bill of Rights should ideally stop the State from infringing on an individual's rights.

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.

What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right.

Should you have the right to refuse to work for an employer because she's a woman?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Should you have the right to refuse to work for an employer because she's a woman?

You'll have to be more specific, because technically one does have the 'right' to refuse a job, for any reason.

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

Should you have the right to refuse to work for an employer because she's a woman?

You'll have to be more specific, because technically one does have the 'right' to refuse a job, for any reason.

But she would probably not have the right to refuse to hire you because you are black.

This unfortunately creates an asymmetry in rights. And it eliminates the whole point of a Bill of Rights. The State is now dictating to a woman what she can do.

This is the fear that Argus expressed above - a Church forced to marry two people against its will.

----

As individuals and as minorities, we need protection from monopoly, or from the majority in a democracy. That should be the sole purpose of a Bill of Rights. The founders of the US constitution understand this well.

The State should not protect us against the idiocy of others because we are free to cross the street and avoid them.

To put the issue in the context of this forum, an Ignore Button would mean we don't have to suffer nonsense. And posters would be free to behave as idiots. But Greg the Administrator would not have the same freedom because there's only one Greg. The forum rules would then tell him when he has the right to ban someone.

(BTW, Thelonious, I'm about halfway thru your Hubris book. Good read.)

[realwannabe]

Duh, because the state belongs to the public. The state provides legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. It represents everyone, i only represent myself. What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. The action of the state always go beyond itself and has far reaching consquences on all citizens.?How ridiculous.

You've lost me here.

The State has the right to imprison you; no other institution has that power.

The State does not provide legal rights and responsbilities for all citizens. A Bill of Rights should ideally stop the State from infringing on an individual's rights.

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.

What i do is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right.

Should you have the right to refuse to work for an employer because she's a woman?

What Bill of rights? Are we talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedom here? Pierre Trudeau made the constitutional amendment and gave Canadians the Charter. The Charter gives us right and protection from the state.

THe state has a right to imprison me only if i am found guilty. If i am not found guilty and if my civil liberties were not properly recognised during the time of the arrest and the time before i was found guilty, the state has no right to imprsion me.

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.

I already said what i do in my private is my own business inso far as it does not infringe on the other person's right. This has to do with the human rights code which is of provinal jurisdiction and it has nothing to do with the Charter because the government is not the source of discrimination here so it doesnt apply to same sex marriage, which is a federal responsibility. you are comparing apple to oranges really.

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. Priests ARE already having the liberty not to marry a divorced couple , why wouldnt they have the liberty not to marry a same sex couple at the private of their own churches?

Thats like saying allowing same sex couples to get married will force heterosexual familes to open their homes to queer couples.

Its totally stupid

If there is anything REAL you want to add, please do it. I sincerely dont know what you are trying to get at at all here, please help me out.

[realwannabe]

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.

The state defines the definition of marriage, and it has a responsibility to treat all its citizen equally so that the Charter can be uphold.