Poll on Gay Marriage

[Argus]

What do people think would be the wise choice? Should we call it marriage, or call it civil union - but with, basically, all the legal rights of marriage. Or should we just let it be recognized as common law, like unmarried heterosexuals. Or should we not recognize them at all?

[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.

[Big Blue Machine]

Black Dog, the term marriage should only be used when man and woman are united. Religions revolve around the term marriage. Calling same sex marriage "unions" is completely reasonable.

[August1991]

I am of the opinion that we should make no distinction between couples of the same sex or different sexes. This includes the use of the word "marriage". The more I think about it, the more I realize that no one should feel ashamed for what they are.

Nevertheless, this issue has thrown up alot of questions.

My understanding is that we can't have civil unions without a constitutional amendment to create such a thing.

Where did you get that idea, BD?

Given that same sex marriage is already legal in six provinces and one territory, such an amendment would be pointless.

That's misleading since the federal government defines marriage and divorce.

1) Change the constitutional definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

I'm not aware of any constitutional definition of marriage.

----

I kind of like your proposal, BD.

Couples can obtain a "civil marriage" or "civil union" from the State. Couples can alternatively obtain a "religious marriage" or "religious union" from a church.

Legally, both methods would be identical; that is, both would amount to a "marriage" contract.

In some jurisdictions, the civil ceremony is required for registration but in others the church reports the ceremony to the State. I see no reason why the State needs to have a marriage registry but if it does, churches can make reports.

There should also be provision for a "deemed union" or "deemed marriage". If two people live together for a certain length of time, then they would be deemed to be married or united.

If we consider constitutional amendments, we should include the idea of "sexual orientation" but make explicit that this does not apply to private institutions such as churches.

[The Terrible Sweal]

My understanding is that we can't have civil unions without a constitutional amendment to create such a thing.

Yes, the court really threw a monkey wrench into my prefered option: government civil unions (only) for everybody, and marriage a matter of private choice.

[Argus]

I am of the opinion that we should make no distinction between couples of the same sex or different sexes.  This includes the use of the word "marriage".  The more I think about it, the more I realize that no one should feel ashamed for what they are.

What about paedophiles? Should they be proud of being paedophiles?

I mean, when you get down to it, they have no more control or choice over their "orientation" than homosexuals do. So if homosexuals should be treated as natural shouldn't paedophiles get the same respect?

[August1991]

I am of the opinion that we should make no distinction between couples of the same sex or different sexes.  This includes the use of the word "marriage".  The more I think about it, the more I realize that no one should feel ashamed for what they are.

What about paedophiles? Should they be proud of being paedophiles?

And do you mean that bank robbers shouldn't feel ashamed either?

That wasn't the meaning of my phrase.

People who happen to be attracted to people of the same sex should not feel ashamed of that fact.

[21stCentury]

What about paedophiles? Should they be proud of being paedophiles?

I mean, when you get down to it, they have no more control or choice over their "orientation" than homosexuals do. So if homosexuals should be treated as natural shouldn't paedophiles get the same respect?

Those who practice victimizing children, in other words paedophiles, are criminals. Their activiities scar human beings for the rest of their lives.

Consenting adults, of either orientation, who engage in non harmful sexual activiety, are not criminals. Both straight and gay have no control over their orientation.

Saying that either of them has any connection to paedophiles is ignorance, or bigotry or both.

[Black Dog]

My understanding is that we can't have civil unions without a constitutional amendment to create such a thing.

Where did you get that idea, BD?

You're right, I was mistaken. In actuality, the federal government only has jurisdiction over “marriage” and not any other relationship status. They simply don’t have the power to replace civil marriage with civil union.

I kind of like your proposal, BD.

To be honest, I was being a little tounge in cheek when I spoke of abolishing marriage altogether. I'm a little uneasy at the idea of stripping the right to marry from everyone across the board. It would seem to make a lot more sense (not to mention be more in line with democratic values) to simply extend the right to marry to gays and have done with it.

[Hugo]

This notion of a right to marry does not make sense to me. A marriage is essentially a contract. Two or more people agree to live together, to share certain things and whatever else they might agree to. In any case, it is an agreement that all parties concerned freely enter into. Why would another party be able to grant or withhold a "right" to enter into an agreement that has nothing to do with them?

That being said, let gays marry. Let polygamists marry. If there actually is anybody out there who wants to marry their dog or their car, let them marry it. If a brother and a sister really want to get married, let them. If people want to be married by a priest, or a vicar, or Fat Elvis, or the Grand High Poobah of McGuffin, or just some guy on the street who agreed to be a witness, that's their business too.

It certainly isn't any of my business, or any of government's business, and to say otherwise is to say that the people most directly affected by a contract have less right to define it or enter into it than persons affected far less.

[August1991]

If there actually is anybody out there who wants to marry their dog or their car, let them marry it.

You can't sign a contract with your dog, or any dog for that matter. There are essentially two conditions for a contract: First, both parties have to be competent and second, both parties have to give up something.

If a brother and a sister really want to get married, let them.

If the two create a business partnership, they have in effect a long term contract.

It certainly isn't any of my business, or any of government's business...

Well, it isn't really anyone else's business in theory. But we live in a society with State pensions, State employees and State immigration laws. State hospitals need permission before operating or committing. A power of attorney does not always exist. People die intestate.

Hence, in such a society, the State must recognize certain contracts - such as business partnerships for tax liability and marriage contracts for many other situations.

It helps if the State prepares a standard, off-the-shelf marriage contract so that individuals don't have to write it each time.

I'm sure that more than one gay couple in the past created a business partnership merely to duplicate the security of a marriage contract but this is an incomplete security.

But consider co-signing a mortgage. A private bank does not require a State marriage certificate to recognize joint liability.

So, true Hugo, the institution of marriage could exist (and largely does exist) outside of the State.

Which brings me back to the real issue: recognition. Gays are asking to be recognized as people like anyone else.

To be honest, I was being a little tounge in cheek when I spoke of abolishing marriage altogether.

I kind of liked your proposal of a church wedding leading to "marriage" but a civil ceremony leading to a "civil union". I see no reason why both could not be legally identical.

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.)

I believe in some provinces and US states, people require a marriage license issued by the State. In some European countries, people must attend a ceremony before a State official in addition to any church ceremony.

Until 1980, in Quebec, all civil registries (birth, marriages, deaths) were maintained privately and the State had nothing to do with this at all.

[Hugo]

You can't sign a contract with your dog, or any dog for that matter. There are essentially two conditions for a contract: First, both parties have to be competent and second, both parties have to give up something.

You are perfectly correct. I was trying to illustrate that it does not particularly matter how strange or perverse one finds a contract that does not involve them, because it does not give them a right to interfere.

Well, it isn't really anyone else's business in theory. But we live in a society with State pensions, State employees and State immigration laws. State hospitals need permission before operating or committing. A power of attorney does not always exist. People die intestate.

Well, this is the problem with governmental interference, isn't it? If the state interferes in one place, it creates consequences somewhere else, and so it has to interfere again, and again, and again. Refer to Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

[Black Dog]

Tangentially, I notice that much of the vocal opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuals in general comes from religious groups. Which raises the question: on what grounds do the major religions forbid homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular? I mean, I'm aware of the oft-cited passage from Leviticus, but I can safely assume that not everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong based on that passage follows many of the other rules and prohibitions laid down within the same Book, such as refraining from contact with mensturating women (Lev. 15:19-24), abstaining from eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood (Lev. 11:10), or not wearing cotton-poly blends (Lev. 19:19). Yet the seem particularily incensed by the notion of homosexuality (even though, based on its omission in Biblical texts, lesbianism is A-Ok by the Lord). I hope someone can fill me in on this very curious phenomenon.

[August1991]

Tangentially, I notice that much of the vocal opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuals in general comes from religious groups.

Now BD, you've gone off on a tangent.

Why are there homophobes? I dunno. But I suspect that homophobia predates the Bible (Old or New Testament) so I wouldn't look there. What does the Koran have to say about homosexuality?

As to your religious example, I think it simply means that religious people are less shy to express their dislike for gays/lesbians because they know other people who feel the same way. (This is PC Canada.)

All men have a mother, and perhaps a sister and a wife. So men see everyday the minority of women.

All white people know about black people, but few know them on an intimate daily basis. White Canadians only see blacks in large cities in Canada, if at all.

Most English Canadians only know French Canadians as hockey players or politicians.

The homosexual minority is an odd one. It is very small. But it pops up intimately among all families. Witness Cheney.

BD, you've raised an interesting question. My first response is to say that people are fearful of anything different.

[realwannabe]

The idea that homosexual couples are not necessarily entitled to marriage as long as they have the same rights is like saying women do not necessarily have to be considered as a ¡§person¡¨ as long as they have the same rights as men. The underlying idea always implies a level of hierarchy and discrimination, in my opinion. It¡¦s common to read opponents of same sex marriage (those who argue anything but ¡§marriage¡¨ for homosexuals) argued that they are appalled and ashamed that their marriage is considered equal to gay relationships. Civil Union is constructed on the foundation of inferiority, and that¡¦s how I interpreted it and I am adamantly opposed to that. t.

[Hugo]

Blackdog, perhaps you'd be interested in reviewing my post here.

[ndpnic]

Homosexuallity exists widespread in the animal kingdom, I believe as Natures "population control".

Many humans forget that "Humans" are animals, and though we like to think we are "above" Natural behaviors, we really aren't .

Let gay people marry if they want.

People have enough to worry about these days without making mountains out of mole hills"!

[Black Dog]

Blackdog, perhaps you'd be interested in reviewing my post here.

I remember that one Hugo and agree wholeheartedly. I was brought up in the Catholic church, but found the tendency among the church and other so-called Christian religions to distort Christs' basic message to be off-putting enough that I questioned the whole works.

That was why I brought it up in the first place: the religious argument against homosexuality in general and gay marriage specifically is rife with contradictions and hypocrisy. Yet it seems to be the strongest one out there, which says to me that SSM's opponents don't have much of a leg to stand on.

[bobocop]

I am not opposed to gay marriage. What I am concerned with is the precedent this may be setting. The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade. The main reason for letting gay couples enter into a marriage is it is their right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women. Oh, and by the way, I own these women and oh yeah, my religion allows me to beat my property.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade. ... Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women. ...

If I understand your concern correctly, I think I can give you peace of mind. The reason you don't need to worry about unsupportable mutations of marriage following willynilly from same-sex marriage is that they would not fall within the purposes and definition of marriage, as Parliament (subject to the constitution) defines.

Fortunately, our laws are not based (in any sort of logical or authoritatively dependent relationship) on Judeo-Christian religion. Thus you need not worry about their foundations when it seems they differ from religious dogma (of whatever variety).

[realwannabe]

and you treating your wives as property and beating your wives would definiately violates the equality right for women established in the charter and the criminal code. Please get a grip.

[ndpnic]

I am not opposed to gay marriage. What I am concerned with is the precedent this may be setting. The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade. The main reason for letting gay couples enter into a marriage is it is their right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women. Oh, and by the way, I own these women and oh yeah, my religion allows me to beat my property.

I don't know about everyone, but I'm not a Christian, and prefer that the laws my government makes have ABSOLUTELY 0% to do with the teachings of the churches!

You have the right to believe what you want, you don't have the right to make laws that are based on Christian beliefs!

[Argus]

What about paedophiles? Should they be proud of being paedophiles?

I mean, when you get down to it, they have no more control or choice over their "orientation" than homosexuals do. So if homosexuals should be treated as natural shouldn't paedophiles get the same respect?

Those who practice victimizing children, in other words paedophiles, are criminals. Their activiities scar human beings for the rest of their lives.

That's not what I said. I did not say "child molester", I said "paedophile". They are not the same thing. Paedophiles are those who are aroused and sexually atracted to children. Most such people resist their urges and never molest children.

So if no one should be ashamed of what they are, as August said, that would include paedophiles, wouldn't it?

[Argus]

I am not opposed to gay marriage.  What I am concerned with is the precedent this may be setting.  The further we move away from our Judeo-Christian law, the further our society as Canadians may degrade.  The main reason for letting gay couples enter into a marriage is it is their right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Is the next step, my religion dictates that I can marry more than one women.  Oh, and by the way, I own these women and oh yeah, my religion allows me to beat my property.

I don't know about everyone, but I'm not a Christian, and prefer that the laws my government makes have ABSOLUTELY 0% to do with the teachings of the churches!

You have the right to believe what you want, you don't have the right to make laws that are based on Christian beliefs!

You are aware, aren't you, that virtually all our laws are based on Christian beliefs? So is our parole system (repentance and forgiveness). If this offends you you might want to find another country to live in.

[Argus]

I am of the opinion that we should make no distinction between couples of the same sex or different sexes.  This includes the use of the word "marriage".  The more I think about it, the more I realize that no one should feel ashamed for what they are.

What about paedophiles? Should they be proud of being paedophiles?

And do you mean that bank robbers shouldn't feel ashamed either?

That wasn't the meaning of my phrase.

People who happen to be attracted to people of the same sex should not feel ashamed of that fact.

I didn't suggest gays should be ashamed of being gay. So your statement is meaningless.

That does not mean homosexuals ought to be getting married. I don't, frankly, even see the point of people who have no intention of having children getting married. And given the relatively short average lifespan of gay relationships (under 2 years i believe) I think all this BS about demanding the right to marriage is really little more than a demand that we all accord homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle the same level of respect as heterosexuality. And frankly, society isn't ready for that.