A Great Day in Canadian History!

[ScottBrison]

"Je déclare le motion adopté."

Tuesday, June 28th, 2005. Will go down as a Great Day in Canadian History. Today we take one more step out of the dark ages and get one step closer to enlightenment.

Ottawa - 9:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time - Bill C-38, The Civil Marriage Act passes 3rd reading of the House of Commons 158-133. It begins its final senatorial journey to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians against the objections of the narrow minded, and surviving one final desperate amendment from those who oppose equality.

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

The only better day in this saga will be when it receives royal assent.

*pops cork on champagne*

However I know the war is not over, when a group of people lets hate consume them as much as the Conservatives and their supporters have I knoe they won't let a little thing like a binding vote in the highest legislature in the land stop them. But we will be there, fighting them every step of the way.

[Argus]

However I know the war is not over, when a group of people lets hate consume them as much as the Conservatives and their supporters have I knoe they won't let a little thing like a binding vote in the highest legislature in the land stop them. But we will be there, fighting them every step of the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't seen much of hate coming from the right on this site. The hatred, bile and contempt come from smarmy, self-important little twerps like you.

Maybe, if you use use an incredible amount of elasticity, people who dissaprove of gay marriage hate gays. But you hate half the country. So what does that make you?

[ScottBrison]

Argus do you want a hug? there there child it's all right......

[JerrySeinfeld]

Argus do you want a hug? there there child it's all right......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're almost as annoying as the REAL scoti brison

[Bakunin]

Yup this is a nice day !

took alot of time but finally we can close that debate.

[newbie]

Yup this is a nice day !

took alot of time but finally we can close that debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hear hear!

[cybercoma]

"Je déclare le motion adopté."

Tuesday, June 28th, 2005. Will go down as a Great Day in Canadian History. Today we take one more step out of the dark ages and get one step closer to enlightenment.

Ottawa - 9:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time - Bill C-38, The Civil Marriage Act passes 3rd reading of the House of Commons 158-133. It begins its final senatorial journey to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians against the objections of the narrow minded, and surviving one final desperate amendment from those who oppose equality.

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

The only better day in this saga will be when it receives royal assent.

*pops cork on champagne*

However I know the war is not over, when a group of people lets hate consume them as much as the Conservatives and their supporters have I knoe they won't let a little thing like a binding vote in the highest legislature in the land stop them. But we will be there, fighting them every step of the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How much nonsense can you come up with in one day? Calling the religious and those people who value family "narrow minded", "desperate", and "consumed with hate" only shows how little you understand what they stand for. Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion would be a human rights violation if it was announced by the government, coming from someone on a message board just shows stupidity. Most conservatives had no problem with the equal rights of same sex unions, what they were against was this kind of blatant HATRED and discrimination towards those who hold family values and religious beliefs dear. With your post you've shown just how right they are.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Whoa. Back up a minute. How did we get here:

Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion ...

from here?

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

Cybercoma, if you're going to respond to a post, at least try to read it first.

[Leader Circle]

"Je déclare le motion adopté."

Tuesday, June 28th, 2005. Will go down as a Great Day in Canadian History. Today we take one more step out of the dark ages and get one step closer to enlightenment.

Ottawa - 9:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time - Bill C-38, The Civil Marriage Act passes 3rd reading of the House of Commons 158-133. It begins its final senatorial journey to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians against the objections of the narrow minded, and surviving one final desperate amendment from those who oppose equality.

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

The only better day in this saga will be when it receives royal assent.

*pops cork on champagne*

However I know the war is not over, when a group of people lets hate consume them as much as the Conservatives and their supporters have I knoe they won't let a little thing like a binding vote in the highest legislature in the land stop them. But we will be there, fighting them every step of the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again I ask, what, pray tell, is their next cause? We have all conceded to be dominated by the minority, what else can you demand of us to prove equality for all shapes and sizes?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Again I ask, what, pray tell, is their next cause? We have all conceded to be dominated by the minority, what else can you demand of us to prove equality for all shapes and sizes?

Oh please. Until someone forces you to enter into a homosexual marriage, please spare us the overblown rhetoric about being "dominated by the minority."

[JerrySeinfeld]

Again I ask, what, pray tell, is their next cause? We have all conceded to be dominated by the minority, what else can you demand of us to prove equality for all shapes and sizes?

Oh please. Until someone forces you to enter into a homosexual marriage, please spare us the overblown rhetoric about being "dominated by the minority."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have already seen some of these things come to pass since this article was written in human rights tribunals and lower courts across the country. We have already seen a Catholic Knights of Columbus hall challenged before the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to grant permission for a same sex wedding reception on church owned property.

We have seen civil marriage commissioners in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have religious or philosophical objections to same sex marriage, removed or threatened to be removed from positions by their government. We have heard the federal Minister responsible for Democratic Reform saying such employees should be punished or fired.

We have seen the Minister of International Trade saying that churches, including the Catholic Church in Quebec, have no right to be involved in any such debate. These may only be the beginning of a chilling effect on religious freedom for those groups and individuals who continue not to believe in same sex marriage.

Indeed, given the ferocity of the Prime Minister's new position, given the refusal to compromise, given the belief that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racial discrimination, the attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interfaces in any way with public life.

[I Miss Trudeau]

We have already seen a Catholic Knights of Columbus hall challenged before the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to grant permission for a same sex wedding reception on church owned property.

In so far as a church group is operating like a business, they ought to be under the same laws and restrictions as any other business. As such, restaurants can not be "White only" and banquet halls can not be "Straight only."

We have heard the federal Minister responsible for Democratic Reform saying such employees should be punished or fired.

What usually happens to a person that refuses to do their job?

We have seen the Minister of International Trade saying that churches, including the Catholic Church in Quebec, have no right to be involved in any such debate.

They're entitled to rage against whatever they want. They're not entitled to get their way, however. Parliament, and society in general, listened to the same heavily flawed arguments over and over and over again for a long time. Any suggestion that opponents of SSM weren't involved in the debate is laughably absurd. Given the complete lack of an argument on the side of SSM opponents, and the ferocity of their shrieking, they were brought into the process to a far larger degree than they deserved.

These may only be the beginning of a chilling effect on religious freedom for those groups and individuals who continue not to believe in same sex marriage.

Who cares? Those who oppose same sex marriage proved that they don't give a damn about anyone elses freedom of religion. They can reap what they sowed, for all I care.

Indeed, given the ferocity of the Prime Minister's new position, given the refusal to compromise, given the belief that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racial discrimination, the attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interfaces in any way with public life.

The attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interferes with public life. Ie, your religious freedom does not enable you to tell me, or anyone else, what I can or can't do.

[cybercoma]

Whoa. Back up a minute. How did we get here:

Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion ...

from here?

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

Cybercoma, if you're going to respond to a post, at least try to read it first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because by implying people with religious beliefs are INTERFERING with the government and should be silenced would be the same thing as putting the nail in the coffin of religion. Religion is an integral part of some people's lives and protected as a HUMAN RIGHT, asking people to disregard their basic human rights for the sake of politics is pure nonsense.

[cybercoma]

We have already seen a Catholic Knights of Columbus hall challenged before the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to grant permission for a same sex wedding reception on church owned property.

In so far as a church group is operating like a business, they ought to be under the same laws and restrictions as any other business. As such, restaurants can not be "White only" and banquet halls can not be "Straight only."

We have heard the federal Minister responsible for Democratic Reform saying such employees should be punished or fired.

What usually happens to a person that refuses to do their job?

We have seen the Minister of International Trade saying that churches, including the Catholic Church in Quebec, have no right to be involved in any such debate.

They're entitled to rage against whatever they want. They're not entitled to get their way, however. Parliament, and society in general, listened to the same heavily flawed arguments over and over and over again for a long time. Any suggestion that opponents of SSM weren't involved in the debate is laughably absurd. Given the complete lack of an argument on the side of SSM opponents, and the ferocity of their shrieking, they were brought into the process to a far larger degree than they deserved.

These may only be the beginning of a chilling effect on religious freedom for those groups and individuals who continue not to believe in same sex marriage.

Who cares? Those who oppose same sex marriage proved that they don't give a damn about anyone elses freedom of religion. They can reap what they sowed, for all I care.

Indeed, given the ferocity of the Prime Minister's new position, given the refusal to compromise, given the belief that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racial discrimination, the attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interfaces in any way with public life.

The attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interferes with public life. Ie, your religious freedom does not enable you to tell me, or anyone else, what I can or can't do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The irony in all of this is that you say that religious groups should be REQUIRED to host same sex marriage receptions, yet at the same time you say religious freedom doesn't enable you to tell someone what they can or can't do. Why does your freedom to have a gay marriage enable you to require the church, that is morally opposed to same sex marriage, to host the party afterwards?

As far as I'm concerned you're denying MANY religions their freedom of beliefs by requiring them to acknowledge gay marraige. This in and of itself is a violation of one of the basic fundamental human rights.

Homosexuals should have equal representation under the law as far as taxes and benefits are concerned; however, it is not the government's place to change the teachings of all the churches that are affected.

[Shakeyhands]

It is a fantastic day! I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay! Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!

[Riverwind]

The irony in all of this is that you say that religious groups should be REQUIRED to host same sex marriage receptions, yet  at the same time you say religious freedom doesn't enable you to tell someone what they can or can't do.  Why does your freedom to have a gay marriage enable you to require the church, that is morally opposed to same sex marriage, to host the party afterwards?

Depends if the Church is acting like a business and rents it hall to anyone who comes in off the street or if it restricts access to members of the Church. If the Church is acting like and competing with businesses (like hotels) then the Church must abide by the same rules as other businesses.

[ScottBrison]

Whoa. Back up a minute. How did we get here:

Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion ...

from here?

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

Cybercoma, if you're going to respond to a post, at least try to read it first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because by implying people with religious beliefs are INTERFERING with the government and should be silenced would be the same thing as putting the nail in the coffin of religion. Religion is an integral part of some people's lives and protected as a HUMAN RIGHT, asking people to disregard their basic human rights for the sake of politics is pure nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and I have no problem with people living THEIR LIVES as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfear with other's rights. I can't remember who it was but another poster said it well in another thread, that Christians seem to think its their duty to police the world and to make all believe as they do, they can't seem to accept the fact that other people believe something they don't. That's why I chose a religion that respects the beliefs of others.

[ScottBrison]

The irony in all of this is that you say that religious groups should be REQUIRED to host same sex marriage receptions, yet  at the same time you say religious freedom doesn't enable you to tell someone what they can or can't do.  Why does your freedom to have a gay marriage enable you to require the church, that is morally opposed to same sex marriage, to host the party afterwards?

As far as I'm concerned you're denying MANY religions their freedom of beliefs by requiring them to acknowledge gay marraige.  This in and of itself is a violation of one of the basic fundamental human rights.

Homosexuals should have equal representation under the law as far as taxes and benefits are concerned; however, it is not the government's place to change the teachings of all the churches that are affected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just for the record, I do oppose government or anyone else trying to tell churches they have to perform same sex marriages, because that would infringe on the church's rights.

See? I can defend both sides!

[Argus]

Again I ask, what, pray tell, is their next cause? We have all conceded to be dominated by the minority, what else can you demand of us to prove equality for all shapes and sizes?

Oh please. Until someone forces you to enter into a homosexual marriage, please spare us the overblown rhetoric about being "dominated by the minority."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many of those involved in the lobbying for same sex marriage are already actively talking about the "next step" which is forcing all organizations which marry people, be they churches, mosques, temples or whatnot, to recognize and marry homosexuals or else forfeit their tax free status. Many of THEM talk about even that as an interum step, before having human rights agencies flat out ordering them to marry gays.

[Argus]

It is a fantastic day!  I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay!  Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!        

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you.

As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity.

Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not.

[Black Dog]

Many of those involved in the lobbying for same sex marriage are already actively talking about the "next step" which is forcing all organizations which marry people, be they churches, mosques, temples or whatnot, to recognize and marry homosexuals or else forfeit their tax free status. Many of THEM talk about even that as an interum step, before having human rights agencies flat out ordering them to marry gays.

um....citation?

[Leader Circle]

It is a fantastic day!  I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay!  Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!        

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Little or no effect on anyone who isn't gay?

OMG! It is going to bring civil suits against anyone who disagrees with them. If they wanna be married in a church and get denied, they will sue. If someone morally believes ssm is wrong, that should be their right! Not anymore!!!!

So for you to say it will have no effect is pure crazy. This will have no end, it opens the door to more reverse racism towards opposers of ssm.

[Black Dog]

OMG! It is going to bring civil suits against anyone who disagrees with them. If they wanna be married in a church and get denied, they will sue. If someone morally believes ssm is wrong, that should be their right! Not anymore!!!!

They can sue. Doesn't mean they'll win. IANAL, but it seems to me there are reasonable options for gay couples wishing to marry in a religious environment (ie. Unitec Church, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada). That would certainly factor into any judgement.

So for you to say it will have no effect is pure crazy. This will have no end, it opens the door to more reverse racism towards opposers of ssm.

Pish posh and poppycock. There's not a single social change of this nature that wasn't hailed as the begginning of the end. And guess what? We're all stil here. No divine smitings, no chasms opening up beneath out feet. No church burnings.

Gay marriage has been a fact of life in this country since 2001. Yet the love between a man and his dog (the love that dare not bark its name) remains unrecognized by the state. Cletus and Mary-Sue will have to wait.

[Leader Circle]

Whoa. Back up a minute. How did we get here:

Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion ...

from here?

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

Cybercoma, if you're going to respond to a post, at least try to read it first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because by implying people with religious beliefs are INTERFERING with the government and should be silenced would be the same thing as putting the nail in the coffin of religion. Religion is an integral part of some people's lives and protected as a HUMAN RIGHT, asking people to disregard their basic human rights for the sake of politics is pure nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and I have no problem with people living THEIR LIVES as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfear with other's rights. I can't remember who it was but another poster said it well in another thread, that Christians seem to think its their duty to police the world and to make all believe as they do, they can't seem to accept the fact that other people believe something they don't. That's why I chose a religion that respects the beliefs of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok.... If you have no problem how others live their life, how about if the Hell's Angels sue a church for not letting them host their "event" whatever it may be? Do you think the church has the right to refuse? How about the neo-nazis renting a Knights of Columbus hall for their "events"? Most will agree, if the church refuses to have Hell's Angels in their church it is their right. If gays want the church, many of you will say it is oppression!!! Where is the line drawn? How long do you think it will be before they require schools to teach homosexuality in their sex ed courses?

[I miss Reagan]

Gay marriage has been a fact of life in this country since 2001. Yet the love between a man and his dog (the love that dare not bark its name) remains unrecognized by the state. Cletus and Mary-Sue will have to wait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes it's unlikely that man and dog will ever be permitted to marry for the reason that there isn't a large beastiality lobby. But say a movement started, and they started public campaigns and appealing to peoples emotions. More plausible is the legalization of polygamy. Just wait a few years when they take it to the surpreme court. There is now a precident and there is no legal reason why they would not allow it. (Although the SCC doesn't seem to make it's decisions based on law)

Of course right now, the answer is no and they say never but once again a mere six years ago it was:

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."