The Current SSM Bill, Having an Identity

[Michael Hardner]

IMT:

Whether or not such people can be adequately protected is not really relevant, considering that there are likely hundreds of laws currently on the books that offend someone's religious beliefs. Yet few would suggest all such laws should be repealed. What makes this one special?

Actually, it is very relevant. People have been protected from being forced to do things that contradict their religious beliefs in the past. A notable example was the Sikh headdress/RCMP issue of a few years back.

There is more to this issue than just that, however. But I thought I'd point out that there are limits to what an employer can make you do if it infringes upon your religious freedom.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The fact that people may or may not be forced to do things against their personal beliefs at work can not be used to oppose the SSM bill, unless one is prepared to demand that all laws that have the potential to violate religious freedoms are also repealed. Consistency demands no less.

[Grantler]

Who says marriage is a right at all?

The founding fathers if Canada obviously used to term marriage in the Constitution due to their reality. They were living in a time when Canada was almost completely Christian (less the native population) and did not forsee this type of societal change.

In my opinion the term was included as such because of the ideal that Canada would always remain dominated by Christian values. So then, with regards to modern times, is it really necessary to skew the intent of including the word marriage in the Constitution?

Would it not be more just to change the entire term used by government to a non-religious term such as union considering the separtion of church and state? It is obvious the founding fathers made an error by choosing to include the term marriage. We not only have the right to offer the same benefits to same sex couples but we have the ability to now amend errors on the part of the founding fathers.

Allow churches to bless marriage and government to recognize unions for their own benefit.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Allow churches to bless marriage and government to recognize unions for their own benefit.

I have to admit that I don't like the idea, but I'd be hard pressed to find legal or moral fault with it.

[August1991]

Allow churches to bless marriage and government to recognize unions for their own benefit.

For all practical purposes, that's what the Liberals propose.

It will be called a "civil marriage" if celebrated before a government official. It will be a "religious marriage" if celebrated in a church, temple etc.

"Civil marriages" will be either mixed or plain vanilla, as chosen by participants. The colour of "religious marriages" will be at the discretion of the shaman.

It really comes down to word usage.

I think I'm less surprised at the tradionalists for objecting than at the activists who believe this will solve their problems.

[yvestar]

It really comes down to word usage.

I think I'm less surprised at the tradionalists for objecting than at the activists who believe this will solve their problems.

This is a very realistic assessment of the situation.

[Grantler]

In reading all of these posts and thinking to myself the implications of religion in the constitution...when a more drastic separation of church and state occurred shouldn't the government have realized the errors of the writers and looked to amend that change.

I mean, who knows what other kind of wording is in there that will be targetted next.

Civil marriages, no, I still say get rid of the word marriage altogether. They can call themselves whatever they want to other people, married or whatever. We shouldn't have a government imposing that officially in anyway. It concerns me.

[knn]

Grantler Posted on Feb 17 2005, 11:26 AM

Civil marriages, no, I still say get rid of the word marriage altogether. They can call themselves whatever they want to other people, married or whatever. We shouldn't have a government imposing that officially in anyway. It concerns me.

"Get rid of the word marriage altogether".??

But why? Why does it "concern" you?

You haven't stated one logical reason to abolish the word "marriage"! There is already a distinction between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. What more do you what?

[Grantler]

I don't see a reason for gay or straight couples to need to government to provide a religious term to a union.

What does the term marriage offer the government?

Churches bless marriages as a matter of their existance be them Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish etc. Let them do so. Neither gay nor straight couples need the government to call their end of the issue marriage.

Here is my argument: spearation of church and state is good...marriage is a religious term, it should be turfed.

[yvestar]

Here is my argument: spearation of church and state is good...marriage is a religious term, it should be turfed.

With all due respect, I'd agree with you partly if the term marriage belonged to a specific religion and the state did not use this term either. But this is not reality. The term marriage, is universally used by most religions and most states. No one should have exclusive rights to the word marriage anymore.

Based on the information at the link below, you seem to have a libertarian view of this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[knn]

Grantler Posted: Feb 17 2005, 01:39 PM 

I don't see a reason for gay or straight couples to need to government to provide a religious term to a union.

...marriage is a religious term...

I don't think that "marriage" is a "religious" term. It originated more as a term of a contract for legal ownership.

"Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' (Sorry ladies, marriage is just another chauvinist institution after all. The wife was merely considered "property" of the husband.)

Marriage also entered English about 1300 as mariage from Old French mariage. That was formed from the verb marier plus the suffix -age. That suffix is used to form a noun from a verb. It comes from Old French - age."

[yvestar]

knn,

Good post. I'm not disputing your research but could you please reveal your source(hopefully it is a source for a broad base of issues) so that I may use it as a reference tool if the need arose in the future.

[Grantler]

I do not think that it is how the word originated that gives it its meaning.

The word shit originated for who knows what reason. Now, it isn't respectable to use it in public. Well, what if it's original meaning was, let us say, LEGISTLATION. Would that make it ok to go against the modern social nature of the word. For example, Paul Martin rises in the House and states..."We are going to pass this SHIT into law." Now, I do not think that is appropriate to argue a words legitimacy based on its original meaning.

Marriage has developed into a very meaningful institution for say the Catholic Church which recognizes marriage as a Sacrament. This is the modern meaning of the word.

[knn]

yvestar Posted: Feb 17 2005, 05:11 PM

knn, Good post. I'm not disputing your research but could you please reveal your source(hopefully it is a source for a broad base of issues) so that I may use it as a reference tool if the need arose in the future.

Sorry yvestart, but I can't locate the exact web site I got from Google. There are literally thousands of sites on marriage and no two seem to agree entirely.

Here's another one:

"Roman marriage originally was reserved as a privilege for men who owned property; its purpose was to insure a legitimate heir. With the legitimacy of heirs as the only concern, the monogamy of men was not important while married women were subjected to the same restrictive laws as slaves. Scholars have asserted this is the basis for today's "double standard" of sexual mores."

That comes from an interesting website labelled Intrigues, Scandals and Christianity.

http://www.moondance.org/1997/summer97/non...on/religion.htm

Also, came across this one, which gave me a chuckle:

"Wedlock

The word "wedlock" has changed greatly in meaning. "Wed" is cognate to modern German "Wette" and to the English word "wager". Its original meaning was "pledge" or "bet".

"Lock" is an obsolete word for "game" which also appears in the word "deadlock", a "dead game" or stalemate.

So wedlock originally meant "a game of chance", "a game involving a bet"."

[knn]

Grantler Posted: Feb 17 2005, 05:41 PM

Now, I do not think that is appropriate to argue a words legitimacy based on its original meaning.  Marriage has developed into a very meaningful institution for say the Catholic Church which recognizes marriage as a Sacrament. This is the modern meaning of the word.

To say that marriage has become more meaningful, "in modern times", is somewhat disingenuous. In the last century the breakdown of marriage has become almost rampant, with divorce reaching a peak of nearly 50 per cent.

[waynej625]

Actually I just read somewhere thjat Catholic Bishops are discussing the possibility of refusing to perform the civil part of the Sacrament of Marriage altogether, because they do not rtrust that down the road some liberal judge is going to rule that a church is discriminating by refusing to perform a same-sex marriage.

Such a move will allow the church to perform the religious ceremony, but the civil registration of that union will have to be done by the couple at the Court Clerk's Office. This will take away any chance some activist gay or lesbian couple tries to push the envelope further, by attempting to force a church to perform such a ceremony against their religious beliefs.

As one Liberal MP stated;

"If you're going to throw open the definition of marriage so you destroy it in essence, how do you know you can ever draw the line any place? If I want two or three wives and want that considered legal marriage, who are you to tell me I can't do that?" - Ontario MP Pat O'Brien, May 10, 2003.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Again I'll ask the question which has gone unanswered on two other threads relating to SSM.

On what grounds should the government selectively choose which ceremonies and contracts to give full legal status to? Why only monogamy, and not poloygamy, for example?

And as a follow up, on what grounds should the government selectively choose which names of ceremonies and contracts to recognize in law?

Group A wants "marriage" to mean X.

Group B wants "marriage" to mean Y.

Which group should the government go with?

The argument from history won't cut it, it merely enforces the outdated nomenclature of a discriminatory and exlusionary society on people today. Perhaps marriage would mean something entirely different if certain segments of society hadn't been excluded from having a "social say" in the first place.

[Guest eureka]

To say that "the argument from history won't cut it" os just your opinion. It appears that the argument from history does convince at least half the population.

To say that it is discriminatory is also only your opinion. If marriage is something between man and woman, as most around the world still believe, then there is nothing discriminatory about it remaining that way. The discrimination is the reverse when those who do hold to the historical view are to be compelled in law to have their marriages turned into something different.

[I Miss Trudeau]

To say that "the argument from history won't cut it" os just your opinion. It appears that the argument from history does convince at least half the population.

That doesn't make it valid.

To say that it is discriminatory is also only your opinion.

Forcing entire segments to accept your definition of marriage is discriminatory, particularly when your definition was arrived at without any input from those segments of society.

Allowing homosexuals to marry allows them to do what they wish to do, and it allows you to carry on doing what you're doing. Its not like homosexuals are demanding that only homosexual marriage be allowed.

The discrimination is the reverse when those who do hold to the historical view are to be compelled in law to have their marriages turned into something different.

Your marriage means whatever you want it to mean. If you really need to tell people what their relationships mean in order to preserve meaning in your own, then I would suggest that your marriage is rather meaningless to begin with.

[Guest eureka]

It baffles me how so many of intelligent proponents of SSM cannot see that their arguments are completely reversible. It seems that all reason goes out of the window on this issue.

Even your last paragraph begs the question. It is because the "antis" consider their marriages meaningful that they will not have the meaning taken out of them. It is they who are being told that marriage is no more than a legal formality and, therefore, it doesn't matter that they consider it to be something very much more.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 11:49 AM 

...It is because the "antis" consider their marriages meaningful that they will not have the meaning taken out of them.

In what way are married people feelling that the "meaning is being taken out of them"? Same sex marriage have taken place now for nearly two years?

Do you feel less committed, less married? Has your marriage changed? If so, how?

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 11:49 AM 

...It is they who are being told that marriage is no more than a legal formality and, therefore, it doesn't matter that they consider it to be something very much more. 

But a CIVIL marriage is a legal formality! If you want a deeply RELIGIOUS marriage I would expect you to be married in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple of your choice.

[Guest eureka]

The meaning is taken out of marriage because it is the union of man and woman. That marrieage will no longer exist.

Civil marriage is also the union of man and woman. That now loses its meaning. Even if you think it is only a legal "contract," it is a contract with a significance. That significance is to be removed.

And, there is nothing to personalize in this. My personal relationship is not relevant to the overall question.

Marriage as it has always been even before a name existed for it, will be gone. The reasons for the union in the past may have been for the interests of social peace and the "legalization" of the term also, but that reasoning may well still be valid.

[knn]

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 03:49 PM 

The meaning is taken out of marriage because it is the union of man and woman. That marrieage will no longer exist.

Of course it will still exist. Marriage can still be the union of a man and a woman. Nothing is being "taken away". It is adding the right that a same sex couple may also have a "CIVIL marriage", but it does not "take out" marriage for a man and a woman.

eureka Posted: Feb 18 2005, 03:49 PM 

Civil marriage is also the union of man and woman. That now loses its meaning. Even if you think it is only a legal "contract," it is a contract with a significance. That significance is to be removed.

Ditto as above. Your quarrel doesn't seem to be about marriage between a man and a woman. That can and will still happen. You quarrel seems to be hung up on the fact that a same sex couple MAY ALSO have the right to marry!

Marriage as it has always been even before a name existed for it, will be gone. The reasons for the union in the past may have been for the interests of social peace and the "legalization" of the term also, but that reasoning may well still be valid. 

Ditto as above. It won't "be gone". Some people actually look upon it as enriching marriage. Puts more couples in a commitment to each, more stable relationship, rather than living "in sin."

[Grantler]

Government made a mistake by recognizing 'marriage' as being just between a man and a woman, that is granted.

But I quote marriage because they also made the mistake of terming it that.

I think that it is fair to assume if the founding fathers made one mistake they also could have made two.

UNION solves both problems.

[knn]

Grantler Posted: Feb 18 2005, 06:02 PM 

Government made a mistake by recognizing 'marriage' as being just between a man and a woman, that is granted.

But I quote marriage because they also made the mistake of terming it that.

I think that it is fair to assume if the founding fathers made one mistake they also could have made two.

UNION solves both problems.

Hardly. To change the term now for all civil marriages to civil "unions"will not wash. Civil marriage is civil marriage. A rose by any other name is still...

"Separate but equal" won't wash either.