Polygamy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Black Dog,

They are not apples and oranges... They are both issues for which the activist courts will read the Charter not literally but figuratively.

I expect that within 2 years polygamy will be legalized too.

And maybe they'll lower the age of sexual consent too. It is the ridiculously high 14 right now.

First, interpreting the constution is not 'activism'. It is the job of the court.

Second, the equality provision of the Charter does not need an activist stance to conclude it covers discrimination against groups beyond the short list. The wording is clear.

Third, polygamy cannot be argued on the grounds that were successful in the same sex marriage cases because it does not fit within those grounds.

[Guest eureka]

I oppose SSM and I resent the calls to prejudice by the proponents. They are the ones who are appealing to ignorance and intolerance.

How this can be called a "Rights" issue is beyond my understanding. We all have the same right to marriage. If ithe right does not suit some, then there is no case for changing the status of everyone else to accommodate those few.

They can have the minority right to civil unions or whatever they want to call the relationship: they can have all the financial benefits. Marriage is one thing: homosexuals have the freedom to choose the same benefits.

I find it ironic that this is about the only thing I would agree with Harper on. If only he had the smarts to use the issue properly instead of himself appealing to the intolerant.

[I miss Reagan]

I agree with Eureka and would add that, as is so often the case, that those who claim ownership of tolerance and open mindedness are often the most intolerant of all. But I will say that the religious crowd doesn't do itself any good, and is actually quite pharisaical, when they call homosexuality evil and try to impose their religion on others. The other side is just as guilty by not accepting polygamy and other reforms to marriage.

[Black Dog]

I oppose SSM and I resent the calls to prejudice by the proponents. They are the ones who are appealing to ignorance and intolerance.

How so?

How this can be called a "Rights" issue is beyond my understanding. We all have the same right to marriage.

Uh no. It's understood that for marriage to have any meaning, it needs to be between people who are making a concious choice to marry someone they are (presumably) attracted to. Homosexuals currently do not have that option.

. If ithe right does not suit some, then there is no case for changing the status of everyone else to accommodate those few.

No one else's status changes. Hetero marriages will not suddenly cease to exist. Gay marriage will be an option for gay people, not mandatory for all.

They can have the minority right to civil unions or whatever they want to call the relationship: they can have all the financial benefits. Marriage is one thing: homosexuals have the freedom to choose the same benefits.

The Supreme Court, as well as lower courts in BC and Ontario have ruled out civil unions as an option.

I find it ironic that this is about the only thing I would agree with Harper on. If only he had the smarts to use the issue properly instead of himself appealing to the intolerant.

I've yet to see an argument against SSM that stands up to even the lightest scrutiny. Most are based on illogic, intolerance and fear, or simple ignorance of the law and its applications.

The other side is just as guilty by not accepting polygamy and other reforms to marriage.

Sez who? I know many people who are for SSM that are also fine with polygamy. Same goes for me. If everyone involved is cool with it, and are all consenting adults and some kind of workable legal framework can be developed, let 'em have at 'er.

No, the problem is people keep dragging ploygamy into the SSM debate, even though the two are unrelated.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I am in favor of both SSM and polygamy, should all of those involved freely consent to such arrangements. Furthermore, it strikes me as odd that people can invoke freedom of religion in order to oppose SSM, and by the same token turn around and deny the freedom of religion to those whose religion allows and encourages polygamy. A little consistency, please. Any reference to freedom of religion in this debate is a farce.

I agree with the previous poster; the anti-ssm lobby has yet to offer anything even resembling an argument against it.

[Guest eureka]

I have stayed away from this argument so far since it is nothing more than a name calling exercise: and an offensive one. Those who think this is a "Rights" issue have no argument other than to call those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, bigots and intolerant.

They should look a little more closely at their reasoning.

There are many religious bigots on the anti SSM side: there are many who believe in the accepted definition of marriage and who do think that a change of that definition is a cheapening of the basic human contract. The latter is my opinion and belief. This new "marriage" is not marriage since it has to alter the meaning to suit a new idea; an idea that is the ultimate in the political correctness that most of the proponents in any other context would profess to despise.

The new "marriage" would, I suggest, be better named a civil union for the facilitation of sexual communion. That is what they would transform marriage into.

[I Miss Trudeau]

So should mixed-race marriages have been called civil unions, too?

[Guest eureka]

If you wish to participate in discussions of some moment, you should not attempt to divert the issues. Particularly with such a silly response.

[I Miss Trudeau]

There were many who believed that mixed-race marriages would cheapen the sanctity of marriage too. What seperates SSM with the (far larger) controversy of mixed-race marriage? If the comparison is so absurd, it shouldn't take you more than a second to tell me what the difference is.

[daniel]

I'm a little out-of-date with the issue, but is the Roman Catholic church consider Catholic/Protestant marriages mixed and are they still opposed to it?

[Guest eureka]

The one second answer is that there is a difference between a man and a woman that is not the same as a difference in skin colour. Ask someone else to explain the difference if you don't know what it is.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

The new "marriage" would, I suggest, be better named a civil union for the facilitation of sexual communion. That is what they would transform marriage into.

You have hit the nail on the head with this one. 'Marriage', and 'Communion', are two of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. Therefore, they do not have 'definitions' outside of the Church definition. If the Civil authorities want to change what is acceptable to them, based on a civil union, in regards to tax laws, et al, then so be it. The gov't should not be able to dictate interpretations to religions, only ban them as a whole based of certain parameters. The failure of a religious group to recognize SSM is not an intrusive violation of rights...

[PocketRocket]

I'm a little out-of-date with the issue, but is the Roman Catholic church consider Catholic/Protestant marriages mixed and are they still opposed to it?

Well, I am Catholic (non-practising), and when I got married, the Catholic church refused to perform the ceremony unless my fiancee would agree to become a practising Catholic.

We got married in a United church.

[August1991]

If the Civil authorities want to change what is acceptable to them, based on a civil union, in regards to tax laws, et al, then so be it.

The BNA Act explicitly made the definition of marriage a federal jurisdiction. The nature of the marriage contract (and its breach - divorce or dissolution by death) is of provincial jurisdiction.

This is no minor issue. In 1867, respectable people did not shack up. A man and woman had to marry.

If the definition of marriage had been provincial, intermarriage (Protestant-Catholic) could have been difficult. By making the definition federal, this problem was avoided.

At the same time, the Civil Code had to be respected in Quebec. Hence the contract terms were of provincial definition. (Incidentally, this becomes messy when two people from different provinces marry.)

Civil unions are a recent invention. They were once called civil marriages (or a civil wedding), as opposed to a religious marriage. Civil marriages were conducted by a non-religious official.

-----

As far as gays and lesbians are concerned, the main right has been won. They can live together and share pension benefits and so on just like straights. Civil unions provide all the same benefits and obligations of marriage.

At issue now is the use of the word "marriage". IOW, we are dealing with "respect".

Black Americans change words every decade or so (coloured, negro, black, African-American) and they still feel "disrespected".

If gays can get married, I don't know if it will make them more "respected". I'm willing to give it a try.

[Black Dog]

Those who think this is a "Rights" issue have no argument other than to call those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, bigots and intolerant.

I've articulated numerous arguments demonstrating this is, in fact, a rights issue. The Supreme Court of Canada, the constitution and 7 provinces all agree that this is a equal rights issue.

"Sanctity": it means sacred or holy. These are terms of faith, not of law. The legal institution of marriage is made by man and set down in his laws and thus subject to the tides of social and cultural change. If that were not the case, marriage would still be a contract denoting ownership of property with the woman as chattel (the real "traditional" marriage).

...there are many who believe in the accepted definition of marriage and who do think that a change of that definition is a cheapening of the basic human contract

Hold up there. How does extending the franchise of marriage (as it were) to people who want nothing mor ethan to make a legal, public and formal declaration of thier relationship "cheapen" marriage? If you ask me, heterosexuals have done far more to cheapen the institution, what with widespread divorce, rampant infidelity etc etc.

Tell me: what difference does it make if the people who want to express their love for one another happen to be of the same sex.

This new "marriage" is not marriage since it has to alter the meaning to suit a new idea; an idea that is the ultimate in the political correctness that most of the proponents in any other context would profess to despise.

I'm having a hard time following this logic: marriage is marriage because it is marriage, so any redefinition of marriage is not marriage? Huh?

Again: marriage is, quite literallly, not set in stone.

And equality is not political correctness.

The new "marriage" would, I suggest, be better named a civil union for the facilitation of sexual communion. That is what they would transform marriage into.

How long wil you people beat your heads against the dead end of "civil unions"?

[cgarrett]

bring on polygamy! i got a vote... and i want polygamy!

you guys who have one wife and don't think anyone should have more than one are just jealous that you couldn't get more than one.

now, i've had a couple of threesomes with some very nice girls... really, you don't know what you're missing!

[Black Dog]

you guys who have one wife and don't think anyone should have more than one are just jealous that you couldn't get more than one.

I'm the oposite: I say ban all marriages!

Besides: I have a hard enough time keeping up with one woman. More than one would probably kill me or drive me insane.

now, i've had a couple of threesomes with some very nice girls... really, you don't know what you're missing!

Ahem. TMI, dude.

That does remind me: I've got to take that movie back.

[cgarrett]

black dog, i am truly disgusted at your decision to follow a way of life where a man may be married to only one women, or none at all... but, i'm not going to get in your way.

our country democratically supports 'freedom of religion' and democracy is the only true 'freedom'. so, when i see you on the street with your nuclear family i will turn the other cheek and accept you as a fellow canadian!

[Black Dog]

black dog, i am truly disgusted at your decision to follow a way of life where a man may be married to only one women, or none at all... but, i'm not going to get in your way.

our country democratically supports 'freedom of religion' and democracy is the only true 'freedom'. so, when i see you on the street with your nuclear family i will turn the other cheek and accept you as a fellow canadian!

Thanks. All we white middle-class heterosexuals want is the same rights as everyone else who's rights we've traditionally trampled on.

[Digby]

Most in this society now days have given up looking to the bible as a source of picking right from wrong.

But if one did they could find way better arguements for allowing polygamy then for allowing gay marriage .

I don't know of a case in the bible of homosexual union being ok with men of God .

But you do see many cases of polgamy with men who was friends of God involved . Isreal had 4 wives , Abraham had 2 , solomon had 700 and on the list goes .

But where did homosexuality ever bring anything but Gods wrath ? When we see Hindue

India actually haveing to remind Canada of what is morally right you wonder how close we are getting to the haircut of ezekiel 5 .

I guess what it comes down too is does the great barber in the sky exist ? And if he does how much is he going to take before he gives us a haircut. Sounds like we have got to the point spoken of in ezekiel 5:6

[I Miss Trudeau]

Shouldn't religions and faiths be allowed to name their ceremonies and contracts in whatever way they see fit? And shouldn't the government acknowledge in law these names in the same manner in which it acknowledges in law the names which the christian religion chooses for its ceremonies and contracts?

[I Miss Trudeau]

The one second answer is that there is a difference between a man and a woman that is not the same as a difference in skin colour. Ask someone else to explain the difference if you don't know what it is.

Of course there is a difference between sex and skin color. But you've yet to tell me why it is a meaningful difference in relation to marriage.

[Guest eureka]

No I haven't! Ask your parents about the birds and the bees. It is not up to me to go into that.

[daniel]

I don't know of a case in the bible of homosexual union being ok with men of God .

I believe David had a homosexual relationship with Saul's son, Jonathan. And then David eventually became king of Isreal.

[Digby]

Isn't that adding alot too it daniel?

wanting it to be there when its not!