Tories prep anti-gay marriage ads

[Black Dog]

You are saying that churches have the right to refuse to perform a gay ceremony but a restaurant does not have the right to refuse service to gays. Why?

Because forcing churches to marry gays violates their right to freedom of religious expression. And noone's interested in denying anyone rights. The civil/legal definition has no bearing on the issue of religious marriage.

Forcing the restraunt owner to allow gays only violates his right to be an asshole, which, last I checked, was not constitutionally protected.

I don't know why you think we can't have it both ways. We can. And will.

No one really has a good explanation as to why not?

I posted a link a few posts back explaining why. I suggest you go back and have a look.

[I miss Reagan]

Ya that explanation doesn't satisfy me. All it is, is verbal ornamentation from the PM govt. saying that civil unions are unequal. An opinion that is false because civil unions would gaurantee gays the same rights just not called marriage. It's very confusing considering we as a country are supposed to support diversity yet we are refusing to admit that gay couples are different.

[Black Dog]

Ya that explanation doesn't satisfy me. All it is, is verbal ornamentation from the PM govt. saying that civil unions are unequal

That's also the decision of the Supreme Court, as well as courts in B.C. and Ontario. "Seperate but equal" is not equal.

Under the Constitution, parliament has the power to define marriage and provinces have the power to create civil unions. This means that the federal government has no juridstiction over civil unions.

As well, any national system of civil unions would require all the provinces and territories to enact identical laws. Given that seven provinces have already ok'd gay mariage, that won't happen.

An opinion that is false because civil unions would gaurantee gays the same rights just not called marriage.

So it would seem it comes down to a word. So what's wrong with letting gay peole use the same word?

It's very confusing considering we as a country are supposed to support diversity yet we are refusing to admit that gay couples are different.

Define "different".

[I miss Reagan]

So it would seem it comes down to a word. So what's wrong with letting gay peole use the same word?

Exactly. It comes down to a word. Why can't gay people leave the word "marriage" alone. Don't change the definition. Why allow 1% of the population step on the toes of the majority. People of all religions (not just the evangelical scapegoats) are opposed and are offended by it. If it's just a word what's the big deal for gays? It becomes more and more obvious that the purpose of this is to shove it in the faces of those who's beliefs don't coincide with it.

Define "different".

Union of two men, or two women. Different than a union of a man and woman. No more no less, just different.

[Black Dog]

. It comes down to a word. Why can't gay people leave the word "marriage" alone. Don't change the definition. Why allow 1% of the population step on the toes of the majority.

Because they're not stepping on anyone's toes. That 1% of the population is simply asking for the same rights as the other 99% of the population. No more, no less. Why is that 99% so worked up about something that doesn't even affect them? Because the only people this will affect are gay people who want to get married. Period.

People of all religions (not just the evangelical scapegoats) are opposed and are offended by it.

SFW. It doesn't affect them. It's none of their business.

If it's just a word what's the big deal for gays?

Marriage is a big deal for the homosexual community because it represents another step on the road to equality and acceptance. Homosexual relationships have been traditionally marginalized and maligned. Including same sex couples within the definition of marriage shows society that gay people are just as capable of participating in meaningful, lasting relationships as anyone else.

It becomes more and more obvious that the purpose of this is to shove it in the faces of those who's beliefs don't coincide with it.

Again: gay marriage affects nobody except those gays who wish to be married.

Different than a union of a man and woman. No more no less, just different.

Just like segregated schools in the pre-civil rights South were "just different".

[I miss Reagan]

Marriage is a big deal for the homosexual community because it represents another step on the road to equality and acceptance. Homosexual relationships have been traditionally marginalized and maligned. Including same sex couples within the definition of marriage shows society that gay people are just as capable of participating in meaningful, lasting relationships as anyone else.

Hijacking the word marriage from religious groups isn't the way to do it. This seems to euphamize what I was saying before, that the point of gay marriage is to shove it in the face of those with religious oppositions and say "ha, you're wrong". It reminds me of the gay couple who begins making out just to offend the old lady who is obviously uncomfortable with it.

Again: gay marriage affects nobody except those gays who wish to be married.

Apparently not. We're now looking at religions being forced to rent their halls out for gay weddings. It also affects civil servants who are forced to marry gay couples or lose their jobs. It smacks of reverse discrimination.

Just like segregated schools in the pre-civil rights South were "just different".

Apples and watermelons.

[Black Dog]

Hijacking the word marriage from religious groups isn't the way to do it.

They're not "hijacking" anything from religious groups. The word in question is a legal definition.

Again: how does expanding the civil/legal definition of marriage in any way affect religious groups?

Apparently not. We're now looking at religions being forced to rent their halls out for gay weddings.

Right, because renting a hall has nothing to do with religious observance and so this practice is discriminatory.

Would you defend a Catholic landlord who, after one too many viewings of "The Passion of the Christ", refused to rent an apartment to a Jew if he felt his religion forbade it?

It also affects civil servants who are forced to marry gay couples or lose their jobs.

IMHO, if someone's PERSONAL beliefs make them unwilling to perform the basic requirements of their job, they should probably find another line of work.

Apples and watermelons.

Not really, because, as an example, it shows the wekness of the notion "seperate but equal". In the cas eof civil unions, the courts have determined that they are not equal.

[I miss Reagan]

IMHO, if someone's PERSONAL beliefs make them unwilling to perform the basic requirements of their job, they should probably find another line of work.

Talk about discrimination. Remember you asked the question, how gay marriage would in any way affect those religiously opposed. There are two ways right there. The use of their facilities as well as being discriminated against for jobs in the government.

[Black Dog]

Talk about discrimination. Remember you asked the question, how gay marriage would in any way affect those religiously opposed. There are two ways right there. The use of their facilities as well as being discriminated against for jobs in the government.

neitehr case has anything to do with religious practices.

Again, in the first case, we're talking about discrimination because they are refusing to provide someone services, even though that service (rental of the hall) has absolutely nothing to do with religious observance.

In the second case you're defending someone's right to refuse to do thier job.

Let me propose a scenario and you can tell me what you think: we have a civil servant who is also a member in good standing of the local Aryan nations chapter. As such, his personal beliefs forbid him from performing civil marriage ceremonies for persons of colour or for mixed race couples. What would you do if you were his supervisor and you received a complaint that your employee was allowing his personal biases interfere with his job performance?

[I miss Reagan]

Let me propose a scenario and you can tell me what you think: we have a civil servant who is also a member in good standing of the local Aryan nations chapter. As such, his personal beliefs forbid him from performing civil marriage ceremonies for persons of colour or for mixed race couples. What would you do if you were his supervisor and you received a complaint that your employee was allowing his personal biases interfere with his job performance?

You're right. But I was responding to your question about how gay marriage would affect those religiously opposed. We're not talking about race, we're talking about sexual preference.

[Black Dog]

You're right. But I was responding to your question about how gay marriage would affect those religiously opposed. We're not talking about race, we're talking about sexual preference.

Sexual orientation is, by and large, an immutable characteristic. Like race.

In any case, I don't see why someone's bias or bigotry should be excused simply because its based on religious grounds.

[I miss Reagan]

In any case, I don't see why someone's bias or bigotry should be excused simply because its based on religious grounds.

Alright then why give religious leaders a pass to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to marry them?

[Black Dog]

Alright then why give religious leaders a pass to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to marry them?

Because to force them to do so would violate the same law and principles that require that we recognize gay marriages.

A wise fellow once said: Render unto Ceaser that

which is Ceaser's and unto God that which belongs to God. Civil marriage is Ceaser's, religious marriage belongs to the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. We can strike a balance between the two that respects some individuals' rights to freedom of religion and other individuals' rights to equal tratment under the law. And that's what is happening with the upcoming legislation.

[the jester]

Alright then why give religious leaders a pass to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to marry them?

in any case, canadians have the freedom to be wed whatever their orientation, do they not?

so as long as there are some religous advocates willing to wed them is that not enough? or must they have whoever they choose to wed them?

until next time,

the jester

[I miss Reagan]

I haven't heard any good explanation as to why civil unions wouldn't be an appropriate middle ground.

BTW I heard a quote from Paul Martin on Jun 8, 1999 where he said something to the effect of the definition of marriage is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and will always remain such. If anyone can find the exact quote I'd appreciate it. Can't help but wonder why it's so hard to find? Interesting how he changed his mind so quickley.

[Black Dog]

I haven't heard any good explanation as to why civil unions wouldn't be an appropriate middle ground.

For the umteenth time: civil unions aren't practical because "any uniform national system of civil unions would require the ten provinces and three territories to enact identical laws in their jurisdictions." And Ontario and B.C. courts have already ruled that civil unions for same-sex couples would be unconstitutional because they still amount to discrimination. It's not that hard to grasp.

To borrow an analogy from gay conservative Andrew Sullivan: If you're going to give homosexual couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain?

[August1991]

To borrow an analogy from gay conservative Andrew Sullivan: If you're going to give homosexual couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain?

To continue your (or Sullivcan's) analogy, since we're only dealing with words, the two people in a straight marriage are called hisband and wife. Should two people in a gay marriage also be called husband and wife?

BD, there is so much confusion over these issues because gays are asking the government to give them something the government cannot give. Gays want popular respect and this, the government cannot give.

As to equality, we are not all the same and because of our differences, we are treated differently. I would think gays of all people would understand that.

The US Bill of Rights got this concept right. Individuals need protection from the arbitrary power of the State. That's all the Charter should do. It cannot be used for social engineering.

[Black Dog]

To continue your (or Sullivcan's) analogy, since we're only dealing with words, the two people in a straight marriage are called hisband and wife. Should two people in a gay marriage also be called husband and wife?

They can cal themselves whatever they want. "Marriage" is a legal term. "Husband" and "wife" are not. "Spouse" is.

BD, there is so much confusion over these issues because gays are asking the government to give them something the government cannot give. Gays want popular respect and this, the government cannot give

No, the hope is that acceptance or tolerance of gay marriage would reduce the stigmatization of gay relationships and lead to broader acceptance. But that would be a side benefit compared to simple equal treatment under the law.

As to equality, we are not all the same and because of our differences, we are treated differently. I would think gays of all people would understand that.

The law says we are to be treated equally and not discriminated against because of factors outsid eof our control.

You are bluring the lines between societies views on gays and different lifestyles and the strict legal concept of equality.

[PocketRocket]

Alright then why give religious leaders a pass to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to marry them?

in any case, canadians have the freedom to be wed whatever their orientation, do they not?

so as long as there are some religous advocates willing to wed them is that not enough? or must they have whoever they choose to wed them?

As I mentioned in another thread, the Catholic Church refused to perform my wedding ceremony because I married a protestant girl.

In this regard, a religion is free to discriminate based on the beliefs of the particular church.

Hmmmm. Again the quote boxes not working. I'm not doing anything different. Anyone else having an intermittent problem with this???

Discrimination of some churches against marrying gays within their walls would be no different.

[Digby]

Don't worry about it ,some false prophet somewhere will marry them.

[knn]

Some churches in Canada already have same sex marriages. Some do not. That is their perogative under the Charter Of Rights. But when it comes to secular marriage there can be no equivocation about the State allowing same sex marriage.

As for civil "unions", forget it. It would not be "equal". Reminds one of the Americans who stated that blacks can have the "same rights" (as long as they don't mix the races together!)

Canada is moving toward same sex marriage and I say it's about time. This nation has trampled on the rights of this minority for far too long.

[daniel]

At one time, being left handed was considered evil. Parents would force their children to "become" right-handed as if being left-handed was a lifestyle choice.

I recently asked in these discussion forums if the Roman Catholic church still considers Catholic/nonCatholic marriages mixed. The answer is yes and the Church will not perform those types of marriages.

I assume the RCC will also not perform mixed race marriages either.

Regardless, people of mixed race and mixed religions find some other means to get legally married regardless if the RCC performs them or not. This in itself renders the opinion of the RCC insignificant.

If SSM becomes legal, the RCC can continue to reject performing what it doesn't want to perform - fine. People will legally find means to get what they legally desire.

[WageSlave]

The issue with gay marriage to me, is that it is an issue. I mean seriously people it's the year 2005!

How about abolishing marriage!!

It'll give women, and minorities a much more liberated position in society.

[August1991]

No, the hope is that acceptance or tolerance of gay marriage would reduce the stigmatization of gay relationships and lead to broader acceptance. But that would be a side benefit compared to simple equal treatment under the law.

Civil unions in fact allow gay couples to behave identically to straight couples. The acceptance issue is what is at stake here.

I am curious to know why the sudden "in your face" approach as opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

The law says we are to be treated equally and not discriminated against because of factors outsid eof our control.

You are bluring the lines between societies views on gays and different lifestyles and the strict legal concept of equality.

This sudden push for gay marriage has borrowed heavily from the US civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. There are numerous problems however. In the case of gays (as in the case of women), it will have to be separate but equal. Gays are different from straights.

IMV, the "strict legal concept of equality" is the problem. The State can't offer that. At most, it can offer some insurance for some people in unfortunate circumstances. At most, the State's powers can be circumscribed to ensure they don't encroach on individual freedom.

I think asking the State to provide equality - legal or otherwise - is doomed to failure.

This issue deserves another thread. Perhaps I'll start one concerning the late 20th century fad to solve social problems by declaring equality. (Bear in mind the danger of fads. The late 19th century fad to solve social problems was to colonize the heathens and show them the proper light.)

[knn]

I am curious to know why the sudden "in your face" approach as opposed to the "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

The "don't ask, don't tell" debacle was a U.S. disaster. It was never in usage in Canada.

This sudden push for gay marriage has borrowed heavily from the US civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.  There are numerous problems however.  In the case of gays (as in the case of women), it will have to be separate but equal.  Gays are different from straights.

Good heavens, no. The U.S. civil rights movement of the 1950/60's is ancient history. Canada settled that item a long time ago. Blacks were coming to Canada in the 1800's (the underground railroad) to escape U.S. slavery laws. Canada was light years ahead of the U.S. in settling that one as well as being ahead in other human rights issues.

As for "gays will have to be separate but equal". WHY?

IMV, the "strict legal concept of equality" is the problem.  The State can't offer that.  I think asking the State to provide equality - legal or otherwise - is doomed to failure.

Wait a week or so for when the legislation is passed. The "State" will be offering exactly that - equality in marriage.

Your slant of this whole subject gives me the impression that you are an American. Am I right?