Gay Marriage

[Libertarian Guard]

Hi, this is my first post. I apologize if I'm posting incorrectly. It's been a while since I've posted on a board with posting rules.

Well, I've had a couple issues with the passing of the Federal gay marriage bill(or whatever it was called).

My first issue was that it's not the federal governments job. It's the province's and/or municipal governments job. It just seems these days that the federal government thinks it can make laws on anything.

My second issue was basically with the proposed options by the parties.

We have parties proposing that two persons can get married. We have parties(or party) proposing that it remain as man and woman.

I found this kind of sad. Why do two consenting persons have to ask the government permission to get married? I guess that's my biggest beef.

I remember seeing Ralph Klein on tv right after the bill was passed and he said he was going to work to get marriage out of the provincial politics. Which I thought was the best idea I heard anyone say. I'm not sure if he's continuing to pursue this.

Where does the mentality come from that makes people think that the government can impose such a thing on people? Someone that advocates putting two persons can get married into law, are proposing that someone else could change this to man and woman. Wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be seperation of marriage and state?

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Is this the correct way to present myself to spark a discussion? My apologies if it isn't.

[kimmy]

Welcome aboard!

Yes, your message is just fine. I would only suggest that in the future you might have a look at some of the other topics on the board to see if your topic has already been discussed, and join in an existing thread if it's discussing what you wish to talk about. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, there has been a number of discussions already; you might want to go look over some of them.

I like your message because it addresses a couple of things that have not been widely discussed on the issue.

-Jurisdiction (I think eureka used jurisdiction as the basis of his argument of why the federal government should not be introducing a SSM bill)

-whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.)

-k

[Mad_Michael]

My first issue was that it's not the federal governments job. It's the province's and/or municipal governments job. It just seems these days that the federal government thinks it can make laws on anything.

On what basis do you make this assertion? I'll agree that this is true in the USA.

My second issue was basically with the proposed options by the parties.  We have parties proposing that two persons can get married. We have parties(or party) proposing that it remain as man and woman. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Same-Sex marriage law is a done deal in Canada, having received Royal assent. This law specifies "two persons".

I found this kind of sad. Why do two consenting persons have to ask the government permission to get married? I guess that's my biggest beef.

Because our governments have a long, long history of regulating or controling the institution of marriage (incidentally, a history that long predates the advent of the Christian Church).

I remember seeing Ralph Klein on tv right after the bill was passed and he said he was going to work to get marriage out of the provincial politics. Which I thought was the best idea I heard anyone say. I'm not sure if he's continuing to pursue this. 

Huh? You opened your post by asserting that it was a Provincial perogative? And Ralphy was talking 'off the cuff' again here, which means you can just ignore him. Ralphy's a smart populist - he knows how to play the game and such comments appeal to his base without costing him anything.

Where does the mentality come from that makes people think that the government can impose such a thing on people? Someone that advocates putting two persons can get married into law, are proposing that someone else could change this to man and woman. Wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be seperation of marriage and state?

The logic doesn't follow. You haven't given any reason why the State ought to be out of the marriage game. They've been in it for a long time for very good reasons. Telling them to get out just because you don't like it seems a bit weak.

[Mad_Michael]

-whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.)

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution.

So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week?

[kimmy]

-whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.)

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution.

So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week?

What Sparhawk proposed, and I think Klein's idea was the same, was to withdraw the term "marriage" from the government's vocabulary, and simply refer to "civil union".

-k

[Mad_Michael]

-whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.)

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution.

So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What Sparhawk proposed, and I think Klein's idea was the same, was to withdraw the term "marriage" from the government's vocabulary, and simply refer to "civil union".

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is a non-starter. It surrenders the marriage turf from the government where it has always been and transfers authority (implicitly) to the Churches - something that would be emphatically opposed.

A marriage is a civil union by definition. Suggesting word-changes never solves a problem.

[Libertarian Guard]

On what basis do you make this assertion? I'll agree that this is true in the USA.

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

And marriage and divorce are listed.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Same-Sex marriage law is a done deal in Canada, having received Royal assent. This law specifies "two persons".

Right. The point I was making was the choice the parties are giving.

Because our governments have a long, long history of regulating or controling the institution of marriage (incidentally, a history that long predates the advent of the Christian Church).

Gotcha. It's just the way it is.

The logic doesn't follow. You haven't given any reason why the State ought to be out of the marriage game. They've been in it for a long time for very good reasons. Telling them to get out just because you don't like it seems a bit weak.

Probably because it's none of the governments business.

[canadian_conservative]

Hi, this is my first post. I apologize if I'm posting incorrectly. It's been a while since I've posted on a board with posting rules.

Well, I've had a couple issues with the passing of the Federal gay marriage bill(or whatever it was called).

My first issue was that it's not the federal governments job. It's the province's and/or municipal governments job. It just seems these days that the federal government thinks it can make laws on anything.

My second issue was basically with the proposed options by the parties.

We have parties proposing that two persons can get married. We have parties(or party) proposing that it remain as man and woman.

I found this kind of sad. Why do two consenting persons have to ask the government permission to get married? I guess that's my biggest beef.

I remember seeing Ralph Klein on tv right after the bill was passed and he said he was going to work to get marriage out of the provincial politics. Which I thought was the best idea I heard anyone say. I'm not sure if he's continuing to pursue this.

Where does the mentality come from that makes people think that the government can impose such a thing on people? Someone that advocates putting two persons can get married into law, are proposing that someone else could change this to man and woman. Wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be seperation of marriage and state?

It has already been passed so stop whining you won you got what you want you got gay marrage passed. Even though I am against gay marrage which is my right to be just in case anyone wants ot have a beef against me. But the federal government does have juristiction over it thats why they call them federal it means they can screw up whatever they want in the hole country and tell the provincial governemtn and municipal government what to do.

[Mad_Michael]

Upon further consideration of the one of the original questions regarding jurisdiction, I understand that there is good reason to claim jurisdiction over marriage falls to the Provinces in Canada under the rubrick of "civil law" (Section 95 of the 1867 BNA).

While that is nominally the case, I think the governmental history of this subject provides a justified case for the Federal government's legislative initiative in this area.

1. Quebec's marriage law was the first to be struck down a couple of years ago. The Quebec Court of Appeals held their ruling in "abeyance" pending a response from the Provincial Legislature (i.e. the so-called 'National Assembly').

2. BC's marriage law was the next to go down - for exactly the same legal reasoning. The BC Court of Appeals held their ruling in "abeyance" pending a response from the Provincial Legislature.

It is to be noted that neither the Quebec nor BC's legislature made any move in any way shape or form to address the issue.

3. Ontario's marriage law was the next to go down - for exactly the same legal reasoning. The Ontario Court of Appeals let their ruling stand - which effectively threw the Ontario marriage law into the garbage and leaves Ontario without a marriage law of any kind.

4. Ontario, BC and Quebec Legislatures proved that they were unwilling or unable to address the issue. According to the law, there was no legal and valid marriage law in any of these three provinces.

On this basis, the Federal government moved to address a vacuum. It was considered the consensus legal opinion that each and every Provincial marriage law in Canada was due to be struck down, one by one as the cases arose. In the face of complete non-action on the part of the Provinces to whom such jurisdiction may be presumed to belong, non-action may constitute deriliction and justify Federal action on that account.

Prior to the Federal legislation to be tabled, there has been ample opportunity for the Provinces to legislate a new marriage law. All were apparently unwilling or unable to do so, including Klein who prefered to play political grandstanding games by mentioning Section 38 of the 1982 Constitution Act (the infamous Notwithstanding Clause).

On this basis, I believe the Federal government is completely justified in tabling legislation in this area. Provincial incompetance made it necessary.

[Mad_Michael]

Probably because it's none of the governments business.

I don't see how. Marriage has always been the government's business through the adjudication of property laws and inheritances.

[Renegade]

-whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.)

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution.

So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would certainly agree that the definition of marriage be taken out of the jurisdiction of the government. Government can decide the rights, obligations and definition of a legal (civil) union. The purpose of this union would be for civil issues, such as survivor benefits, joint ownership of assets, family income, how assets should be split in the event of a dissolution of the civil union. Presumably the government would also set an age limit for entering a civil uniion.

By this definition, you are free to have a civil union with your neice if you choose provided she is of an age which allows her to enter a civil union.

[Mad_Michael]

It has already been passed so stop whining you won you got what you want you got gay marrage passed.  Even though I am against gay marrage which is my right to be just in case anyone wants ot have a beef against me.  But the federal government does have juristiction over it thats why they call them federal it means they can screw up whatever they want in the hole country and tell the provincial governemtn and municipal government what to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good gosh you have a few chips on your shoulders. Chill.

As has been noted, section 95 of the BNA Act gives authority here to the Provinces so the quesiton is a valid one. I have given what I believe to be a good explanation of how the Federal action can be constitutionally justified here. Your assertion that the federal government has absolute authority is completely erroneous.

P.S. I will defend your right to dislike gays or dislike gay marriage, though I'll expect you to defend my right to dislike 'conservatives'.

[canadian_conservative]

It has already been passed so stop whining you won you got what you want you got gay marrage passed.  Even though I am against gay marrage which is my right to be just in case anyone wants ot have a beef against me.  But the federal government does have juristiction over it thats why they call them federal it means they can screw up whatever they want in the hole country and tell the provincial governemtn and municipal government what to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good gosh you have a few chips on your shoulders. Chill.

As has been noted, section 95 of the BNA Act gives authority here to the Provinces so the quesiton is a valid one. I have given what I believe to be a good explanation of how the Federal action can be constitutionally justified here. Your assertion that the federal government has absolute authority is completely erroneous.

P.S. I will defend your right to dislike gays or dislike gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well let me ask you somthing the provincial government cant tell the federal government what to do. The feds have authority because they have juristiction federal wide. Now I am not saying they have absolute power im arguing to you because you said the federal government has no business in gay marrige whih they do. The only people that can vote against the feds are the house of commons and opposition leaders whihc can vote down a bill.

I dislike gay marrage, I have gay freinds I am not rooting them on for being gay I am actually dissapointed in them for being that way but I do not hate them.

[Littlefinger]

Libertarian Guard,

Under Section VI:

Section 91

Powers of the Parliament

26. Marriage and Divorce

Section 92

Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures

12. The Solemnization of MArriage in the Province

In short, the federal government has the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage. The province is responsible for witnessing, recording, etc, the marriage.

[canadian_conservative]

Libertarian Guard,

Under Section VI:

Section 91

Powers of the Parliament

26. Marriage and Divorce

Section 92

Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures

12. The Solemnization of MArriage in the Province

In short, the federal government has the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage.  The province is responsible for witnessing, recording, etc,  the marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks if you were defending my claim about the federal governemnt?

[Mad_Michael]

I would certainly agree that the definition of marriage be taken out of the jurisdiction of the government. Government can decide the rights, obligations and definition of a legal (civil) union. The purpose of this union would be for civil issues, such as survivor benefits, joint ownership of assets, family income, how assets should be split in the event of a dissolution of the civil union. Presumably the government would also set an age limit for entering a civil uniion.

By this definition, you are free to have a civil union with your neice if you choose provided she is of an age which allows her to enter a civil union.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is this in any way different than the present status quo? I see none and therefore must ask, why bother with the word change if for no reason?

[Renegade]

How is this in any way different than the present status quo? I see none and therefore must ask, why bother with the word change if for no reason?

It is different in that "marriage" is understood to be a conjugal union. Why not create a civil union which would give a legal structure to any two consenting adults.

For example if two brothers wish to form a civil uniion, for the purposes of being a legal beneficiary or pooling their assets, or taking advantage of a tax status, why should they not be able to do so.

Would this be permitted in the status quo?

[cybercoma]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

[Riverwind]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

I agree 100% - but my understanding is non-religious people wanted the right to be 'married' without having to find a church to belong to.

[Renegade]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does the commitment have to be consummated?

[canadian_conservative]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you completly I think that politics and religion should be completly seperate and marrige is religion. I myself am a christian but thats besides the point. You say save the term for religious people but how come gays and lesbians want it to be called marrige and don;t want it called civil union?

[Renegade]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you completly I think that politics and religion should be completly seperate and marrige is religion. I myself am a christian but thats besides the point. You say save the term for religious people but how come gays and lesbians want it to be called marrige and don;t want it called civil union?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You miss the point. What they want is not the word "marriage". They want EQUALITY. They want the same conditions as hetrosexual couples. I'm sure if hetrosexual couples would agree to call it strictly civil unions, and not marriage, homosexual couples would too.

[donvonbra]

You miss the point. What they want is not the word "marriage". They want EQUALITY. They want the same conditions as hetrosexual couples. I'm sure if hetrosexual couples would agree to call it strictly civil unions, and not marriage, homosexual couples would too.

And our friend Stephen Harper has learned the perils of compromise on these hot-button social issues. He is proposing civil unions with the same legal status as hetero married folks. As a result he has got the gays pissed off at him who say the proposal is demeaning and also the religious right is mad because that don't want gays to have any rights at all.

don

[Renegade]

And our friend Stephen Harper has learned the perils of compromise on these hot-button social issues. He is proposing civil unions with the same legal status as hetero married folks. As a result he has got the gays pissed off at him who say the proposal is demeaning and also the religious right is mad because that don't want gays to have any rights at all.

don

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen Harper is a self-righteous idiot. The gay-rights advocates are right. The religious right are not fighting for their rights, they are fighting to trample on the rights of others.

[Mad_Michael]

Save the term marriage for the religious; government should strictly refer to any kind of consummated long-term commitment as "civil union".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Save"???

Marriage has always been a governmental concern, a concern that long predates Christianity.

Thus, you are not proposing anything "traditional" here - rather you are proposing something that sounds even more radical than same-sex marriage. Funny how in the defense of tradition, conservatives are willing to be extremely radical and revolutionary. I guess consistency of principle isn't important - as long as you get what you want.