Same-Sex Marriage

[Black Dog]

One of the best solutions to all this might simply be to repeal the whole F'ing thing.

Since the introduction of common-law property rights, etc. there really is no significant difference between being married and living common-law anyway.

The whole concept is perhaps a little outdated. Like a previous post had mentioned, it may be preferable to leave it up to people to define their relationship, as opposed to the government.

I don't understand this "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that assumes marriage is a concept valued only by religious types. It seems ridiculous and heavy-handed to destroy the concept of civil marriage for everyone just to keep gays out of it (especially since so many people were upset becaus e leagalized SSM was such a radical change; what could be more radical than getting rid of civil amrriage altogether?). The way things stand now, no one is being denied any rights. Religious marriage is still defined by the individual religious sect, civil marriage applies to everyone.

[Leafless]

BlackDog

You wrote- " It seems ridiculous and heavy handed to destroy the concept of civil marriage for everyone just to keep gays out"

Not really as marriage was never meant for gays unless you can prove that point.

The fact is the Constitution Act of 1867, capacity to marry falls under federal jurisdiction, while the solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility.

It was Jean Chretien who opened the door to SSM by NOT APPEALING SSM provincial challenges in both Ontario and Quebec but instead allowed provincial courts to take a phased approach to do this.

I believe if the feds originally would have challenged SSM they would have won which would have forced gays to choose an alternative as there are a number of avenues the feds could have pursued to do this.

[August1991]

Here we go again.

The govt has absolutely no business in defining the term , it is what is causing all the grief. Let the individual define it, or some other institution like a church.

Not an option.

The constitution gives the federal government the power to define marriage and the provinces the power to solemnize it.

In this thread poll, I voted in favour of same-sex marriage but more important, I think gays and lesbians should be respected and feel as free to speak about who they are as, say, Roman Catholics, vegetarians or left-handed people speak about themselves.

The material difference came when gays were allowed to sign civil unions and benefit from a marital contract. This was the big change.

The additional use of the word "marriage" is just a symbolic measure of respect. Gay activists would have us believe that people who oppose gay marriage are bigots similar to the KKK or Nazi anti-semites. That's nonsense. By that measure, Sweden and Denmark are populated by rampant bigots. I think people who oppose same-sex marriage should be respected too.

True, rights should not be decided by majority vote, but then rights should not be created out of thin air by nine people either. By rights, non-discrimination based on sexual orientation should be an explicit amendment to the constitution.

I think Harper's compromise is not bad. I would have preferred that the federal government leave the issue of solemnizing marriage to the provincial governments, which is how the constitution is written. IOW, if BC or Quebec or Ontario want to have gay marriage, then fine. If Alberta or PEI don't, fine too.

Lastly, I just don't care about the issue of gay marriage that much. Many gays are still in the closet and fear talking to their family about themselves. This strikes me as a far more important issue for gays. Then again, controlling federal government spending strikes me as an issue that far overshadows the minor word games of a small community, relatively well off.

[Murray B.]

No fair! This is a trick question.

This is not about the right of gay people to co-habitate but whether the federal government has the right to change a commonly used word.

Please separate your question into two parts because there are two totally different issues here.

For example:

1. Should gay people have the right to enter into legally recognized unions?

2. Does any government have the right to redefine words in common use?

[sage]

Originally I was against SSM. However having just been married, if anyone wants the nightmare of organizing a wedding, by all means have at it.

[Black Dog]

BlackDog

You wrote- " It seems ridiculous and heavy handed to destroy the concept of civil marriage for everyone just to keep gays out"

Not really as marriage was never meant for gays unless you can prove that point.

Well, by the same token, voting was never menat for women, property ownership was neve rmeant for any non white males etc. etc. Things change.

[tml12]

BlackDog

You wrote- " It seems ridiculous and heavy handed to destroy the concept of civil marriage for everyone just to keep gays out"

Not really as marriage was never meant for gays unless you can prove that point.

Well, by the same token, voting was never menat for women, property ownership was neve rmeant for any non white males etc. etc. Things change.

I heard a study on local radio last night that said some of what you're saying, except with polygamy.

"Why not?" The woman was saying. "Times change. Studies suggest it would be good to legalize it."

I respect the rights of all people who live in this country but really? I hope Harper appoints right-leaning, pro-family, pro-community judges instead of these far left neo-communist activist judges who are re-writing every wholesome law we ever had in this country.

If you're gay and have 30 boyfriends that is fine with me. Just don't ask me to accept imposing your values (or lack thereof) on me.

[Black Dog]

respect the rights of all people who live in this country but really? I hope Harper appoints right-leaning, pro-family, pro-community judges instead of these far left neo-communist activist judges who are re-writing every wholesome law we ever had in this country.

If you're gay and have 30 boyfriends that is fine with me. Just don't ask me to accept imposing your values (or lack thereof) on me.

I doubt you see the contradiction here, so I'll spell it out. On the one hand , you say you have no problem with what people do privately, but oppose anyone imposing their values on you. Yet you have no qualms about imposing your values on others (through the appointment of right-wing activist judges). Double standard much?

I'm also curious about how gay marriage is being imposed on you; how does it effect you at all?

[Biblio Bibuli]

I'm also curious about how gay marriage is being imposed on you; how does it effect you at all?

Don't be surprised if you get a black eye after asking some redneck whether he is married, and upon getting a positive answer you foolishly proceed to enquire whether it is a man or a woman he is married to.

[politika]

Silence is consent.

My vote today in the federal election supports my disagreement with gay marriage.

I'm not about to tell other people what to do with their private life, but don't try and tell me 2 homos are equal but merely different to a real married couple. That's a load of crap.

Thank god and amen another person agrees with me on this oppinion.

[politika]

If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why.

Too bad marriage isn't soley a religious institution. It's also a state-sanctioned contract. I don't care if you don't believe that's the way it should be, that's the way it is.

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago. I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married. Your telling me the government isn't interferign with religion? think again? You watch in a few years the government will let homos sue churches if they don;t marry them.

[tml12]

respect the rights of all people who live in this country but really? I hope Harper appoints right-leaning, pro-family, pro-community judges instead of these far left neo-communist activist judges who are re-writing every wholesome law we ever had in this country.

If you're gay and have 30 boyfriends that is fine with me. Just don't ask me to accept imposing your values (or lack thereof) on me.

I doubt you see the contradiction here, so I'll spell it out. On the one hand , you say you have no problem with what people do privately, but oppose anyone imposing their values on you. Yet you have no qualms about imposing your values on others (through the appointment of right-wing activist judges). Double standard much?

I'm also curious about how gay marriage is being imposed on you; how does it effect you at all?

BlackDog,

I have no idea what people do privately, that is true. What I said was a double-standard. You are right BlackDog. But surely you can understand my point: your leftist judges were clearly appointed by the party you support (supposedly Liberal, NDP, Green, etc.)

Gay marriage is not being imposed on me. It is being imposed on my society. You obviously do not believe marriage has much value and that the state can change the definition at will, clearly in opposition to the majority of religious people.

It affects me because it is a clear violation of my religion (Catholic). I have gay friends. I have gone to gay weddings. My gay friends respect my decision (and many of them agree with it).

I cannot support it BD because it is not how my religion defines marriage and because for me marriage is defined by how my religion defines it. I hope you will understand respect my decision.

[tml12]

Silence is consent.

My vote today in the federal election supports my disagreement with gay marriage.

I'm not about to tell other people what to do with their private life, but don't try and tell me 2 homos are equal but merely different to a real married couple. That's a load of crap.

Thank god and amen another person agrees with me on this oppinion.

I agree with you too politika.

[Black Dog]

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago.I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married.

Yeah, well, in Christ's time, wives were considered property of the husband, but I don't hear much complaining about the government "redefining" marriage as a union of equals.

Your telling me the government isn't interferign with religion? think again? You watch in a few years the government will let homos sue churches if they don;t marry them.

Um...putting forward a hypothetical is not proof that teh government is interfering with religion.

For the billionth time, the same legislation which legalizes same sex unions also protects churches from having to perform marriages that are against their beliefs (which is also protected under the Charter). I don't understand why you people can't get your heads around that.

tml12:

Gay marriage is not being imposed on me. It is being imposed on my society. You obviously do not believe marriage has much value and that the state can change the definition at will, clearly in opposition to the majority of religious people.

Gay marriage is not being "imposed" on anyone. And yeah I belive the government can change the legaldefinition of marriage at will, just as they can change any other law.

It affects me because it is a clear violation of my religion (Catholic). I have gay friends. I have gone to gay weddings. My gay friends respect my decision (and many of them agree with it).

IIRC (and I'm a lapsed R.C., so I may be wrong) the Catholic Church can refuse to marry anyone it wants if such a union is against the tenants of the Church: divorcee's, mixed faith couples etc. I fail to see why homosexuals would be any different.

I cannot support it BD because it is not how my religion defines marriage and because for me marriage is defined by how my religion defines it. I hope you will understand respect my decision.

Whatever. Your religion can continue to define marriage however it pleases. The state can define marriage as it pleases. "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's..." and all that.

[tml12]

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago.I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married.

Yeah, well, in Christ's time, wives were considered property of the husband, but I don't hear much complaining about the government "redefining" marriage as a union of equals.

Your telling me the government isn't interferign with religion? think again? You watch in a few years the government will let homos sue churches if they don;t marry them.

Um...putting forward a hypothetical is not proof that teh government is interfering with religion.

For the billionth time, the same legislation which legalizes same sex unions also protects churches from having to perform marriages that are against their beliefs (which is also protected under the Charter). I don't understand why you people can't get your heads around that.

I got my head around it BlackDog. But you and other leftists are arguing that the state can marry people.

NO IT CAN'T.

The state cannot (and should not) even define marriage. You can get married in a secular place and call it "marriage" but as far as I am confirmed it is a "union registered by the state" AKA civil union.

[Black Dog]

I got my head around it BlackDog. But you and other leftists are arguing that the state can marry people.

NO IT CAN'T.

Yes it can, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The state cannot (and should not) even define marriage. You can get married in a secular place and call it "marriage" but as far as I am confirmed it is a "union registered by the state" AKA civil union.

You can call it whatever you want: fact is, from a legal standpoint, civil marriages are equal in standing to religious unions.

[Melanie_]

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago. I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married.

This is the problem with religion defining any rights for the rest of us. What other rules do you want to set? Just because you believe it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else. I don't accept your religion, and I don't want it making rules for me to follow. Religion has to be seperate from the state, and the state has to value each person equally.

[tml12]

I got my head around it BlackDog. But you and other leftists are arguing that the state can marry people.

NO IT CAN'T.

Yes it can, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The state cannot (and should not) even define marriage. You can get married in a secular place and call it "marriage" but as far as I am confirmed it is a "union registered by the state" AKA civil union.

You can call it whatever you want: fact is, from a legal standpoint, civil marriages are equal in standing to religious unions.

I agree this Canadian state thinks it can. I don't know who gave it the right to think it can.

I can call it what I want? Good. I will call it what the world called it for Earth's 4.5 billion year existance.

[tml12]

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago. I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married.

This is the problem with religion defining any rights for the rest of us. What other rules do you want to set? Just because you believe it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else. I don't accept your religion, and I don't want it making rules for me to follow. Religion has to be seperate from the state, and the state has to value each person equally.

Religion has to be separate from the state, eh? I back your argument. And that is why the state shouldn't define marriage.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Don't be surprised if you get a black eye after asking some redneck whether he is married, and upon getting a positive answer you foolishly proceed to enquire whether it is a man or a woman he is married to.

I wonder if there is, on governmental forms at least, a new box to check aside from the one that asks whether you're 'single' or 'married', asking whether it's a 'man' or a 'woman' you are married to.

That could rile up some men too. And even some gay men, eventually.

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman." - Arnold Schwarzenegger

[politika]

Marrage is religious institution and its been that way since the lord christ was around a 2 thousand years ago. I am not telling you you have to believe there is a higher power out there I am just saying I believe theres a god, and along time ago whether he existed or not it was a religious institution for a man and a woman to becoem one and get married.

This is the problem with religion defining any rights for the rest of us. What other rules do you want to set? Just because you believe it doesn't mean you can impose it on everyone else. I don't accept your religion, and I don't want it making rules for me to follow. Religion has to be seperate from the state, and the state has to value each person equally.

I never said you had to except my religion, but the church has no business in interfeing with marrage. You guys say that there is legislation that protects religious rights but where was this piece in are charter that said the government wouldnt interfere with marrage? Where will it be when it changes again to say that churches have to marry homos? The charter can be changed at any times you know as we saw when SSM was passed and included with the not withstanding clause in are charter.

[BubberMiley]

Don't be surprised if you get a black eye after asking some redneck whether he is married, and upon getting a positive answer you foolishly proceed to enquire whether it is a man or a woman he is married to.

This is the best reason against SSM I've heard yet. Because rednecks are too insecure in their sexuality to handle it.

[Melanie_]

Politika -

You imply I have to accept your religion when you state that religion is the only institution that can define marriage. Marriage exists outside of your definition, and has for much longer than the 2000 years you claim.

The Charter guarantees freedom of religion. The only way we can have freedom of religion is if there is a complete seperation of religion and state. Otherwise, one religion is getting preferential treatment over another (Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhism/Wicca, etc.)

And you might want to check on your reference to the Notwithstanding Clause. It wasn't used to pass same sex marriage, but it might have to be used to change it back.

[politika]

Politika -

You imply I have to accept your religion when you state that religion is the only institution that can define marriage. Marriage exists outside of your definition, and has for much longer than the 2000 years you claim.

The Charter guarantees freedom of religion. The only way we can have freedom of religion is if there is a complete seperation of religion and state. Otherwise, one religion is getting preferential treatment over another (Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhism/Wicca, etc.)

And you might want to check on your reference to the Notwithstanding Clause. It wasn't used to pass same sex marriage, but it might have to be used to change it back.

But you miss my point religion IS Marrage, you marry in a church, the priest, pastor or whom ever reads from the bible, than marries you in holy matramony, is marrage not religion? It involves every asspect of religion. I am not saying you have to be christian I am simply stating that marrage has everything to do with religion.

Now I believe in seperation of church and state that is why I think that gays and lesbians should have stuck to cival unions, whats wrong with that? most non religious heterosexual couples chose to have a civil union also know as common law. Why cant gays stay away from religion by sticking to civil unions? I want to get married to a woman one day knowing that marrage still means somthing.

Alot of people in this forum agree with me on this, as the polls say.

PS. My bad on the not withstanding clause, I should have done research on my part for that one.

[Shady]

I'm for civil unions, but not gay marriage. "Same-sex" marriage is an oxymoron. That fact that you need to put the term "same-sex" in front of marriage proves the point, that marriage is between a man and a woman.