Gay Marriage

[Mad_Michael]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cannot countenance your calling Harper and idiot as such language is not justified.

That being said, I very much agree that the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage or same-sex. It is all about rights and powers that the religious groups feel they've lost and are seeking to regain. Control over public institutions (such as marriage) is always the goal of religious groups.

If you can't beat them with a holy book, use your electoral clout to get the government to force the agenda. Seems pretty simple and straight forward.

[Mad_Michael]

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.

Because marriage is a 'civil union' and a 'civil union' is a marriage. They are one and the same.

The undertone of your suggestion is to create two classes and that is exactly what the gay-crowd will not accept. As the Americans have already shown, "separate but equal" doesn't work (i.e. segregation). There is no equality is separations and distinctions.

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.

Funny you should mention this as this is I understand the format of the same-sex marriages that the Byzantine (Christian) Empire performed and recognised in the 8th and 9th century AD (under the rubric of 'brotherhood' - a legal combination of marriage and adoption).

Would this be permitted in the status quo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The status quo in Canada allows same-sex marriage, however, the State prohibits blood relations from getting married.

Your example is a poor one since the legal status of being brothers already address several of your asserted 'goals'. You need to use to unrelated 'straight' persons for your example to have much meaning. One of the key 'rights' that gays seek with marriage is the hospital rules about visitors and decision making for incapacity. As it stands, hospitals are legally required to favour the blood family over any non-married 'partner' of an incapacitated patient. This same law places the married partner above blood family in such matters. With gays, this issue is particularly salient due to often poor relationships with existing blood family.

The other key issue is that of inheritance. Court cases have shown that a determined blood family can get a will overturned if that will favours a homosexual relationship. Overturing a will that favours the survivor of a legal marriage is almost impossible.

Indeed, one cannot understand any 'gay' issue without reference to the context and background of 'gay' people's long-standing victimisation by straight people.

[Renegade]

Because marriage is a 'civil union' and a 'civil union' is a marriage.  They are one and the same. 

The undertone of your suggestion is to create two classes and that is exactly what the gay-crowd will not accept.  As the Americans have already shown, "separate but equal" doesn't work (i.e. segregation).  There is no equality is separations and distinctions.

Two classes? Not at all. I think any two consenting adults should be able to commit to a civil union, regardless whether they are hetrosexual, homosexual, related by blood or unrelated. I don't know where you got the impression that I am advocating two classes.

You ask what is the distinction from marriage. "Marriage" in an arrangement which a set of exclusions and responsibilities which potentially a civil union does not. The gender of each partner in the marriage is only one of the issues and is the one currently broached. But "marriage" as it known, also implies a sexual relationship.

For the purposes of the govenment creating a legal structure, why bother with these extraneous responsibilities? If there was no sexual context in a civil union, what justification would a government have for excluding blood relatives?

Funny you should mention this as this is I understand the format of the same-sex marriages that the Byzantine (Christian) Empire performed and recognised in the 8th and 9th century AD (under the rubric of 'brotherhood' - a legal combination of marriage and adoption).

Proves the point don't you think? At this point, I think marriage has become too overloaded a term to use to define a relationship which is not the norm. (such as same-sex blood relatives). This is why I would favour redefining the structure under a civil-union.

The status quo in Canada allows same-sex marriage, however, the State prohibits blood relations from getting married.

Your example is a poor one since the legal status of being brothers already address several of your asserted 'goals'. You need to use to unrelated 'straight' persons for your example to have much meaning. One of the key 'rights' that gays seek with marriage is the hospital rules about visitors and decision making for incapacity. As it stands, hospitals are legally required to favour the blood family over any non-married 'partner' of an incapacitated patient. This same law places the married partner above blood family in such matters. With gays, this issue is particularly salient due to often poor relationships with existing blood family.

True, that the example of brothers may have some of the goals, but they do not have others. For example, do you think a brother can claim "equivalent-to-spouse" deduction on their taxes. Do you think a surviving brother can claim survivor benefit under CPP?

In any case regardless if we use the example of two brothers or two unrelated straight persons, the point is that a civil-union can be defined free of the connotations and restrictions of marriage. Face it, its the word "marriage" that causes so many people a hard time.

In my view, marriage should be self-declaratory. Of course a person can delegate to a church to do such a declaration if they so choose.

The other key issue is that of inheritance. Court cases have shown that a determined blood family can get a will overturned if that will favours a homosexual relationship. Overturing a will that favours the survivor of a legal marriage is almost impossible.

Indeed, one cannot understand any 'gay' issue without reference to the context and background of 'gay' people's long-standing victimisation by straight people.

The validity of a civil-union has not been tested in courts because the govenment has not defined one. I expect it will have the same legal security as would a marriage.

I fully understand and appreciate that gay people have felt treated as unequal, and rightly so. The government can treat all people equaly if it stays out of the definition of marriage.

[cybercoma]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Canadian government predates Christianity?

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Canadian government predates Christianity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A lame attempt at humour? I've made no such statement as you suggest.