Poll: Should We Have A Referendum On Same-Sex Marriage?

[mikedavid00]

Nope.

Yup. The pastor or Imam or whoever holds a marriage license and signs a whitness for the marriage certificate along with the bride and groom. They are given the power of the gov't to marry you. That's why at the end of the speech the Reverand says 'By the power vested in me by the state or province of.. i now pronounce you man, and wife. You may now kiss the bride'. And then the organs sound and the husband and wife walk down the ilse while the parents and friends are teary eyed.

- a marriage isn't valid until it is registered with the state - church endorsement is not required.

Exactly. So gays should not be denied this right. There is a marriage, and there is a civil union. The state gives you a civil union and a peice of paper. But make no mistake the vows of marriage are officially anounced upon under God and a promise is whitnessed and signed upon. That to many people is marriage.

Why should people who don't believe in religion be subject to restrictions based on someone else's superstitions?

They aren't. They can go and and have a promise ring and promise ceremony then go file their papers and have a legal union.

Civil unions are a cop out - people don't want to get "civil unioned", they want to get married.

But what is marriage exactly? That is for the people to decide. For our society to decide. And I'm sure that most people would agree that marriage now includes 2 men. Marriage in Canada is not the same as marriage in Pakistan.

Rights is already there with a civil ununion.

Marriage is a sacrade, moral thing that many people hold close to their heart. It's a promise to God of a man and a woman under religion. When people consider 2 men married, it demeans and offends people who beleive that 2 men should not be considered married because their religion is apposed to this. (all religions actually). The Islamic faith is extrememly, extrememly apposed to this and you can die in other countries if your caught being gay and happen to live in a small village.

Voting on minority rights implies a power imbalance in favour of the majority. What the citizens want is secondary to the basic human right to equality before the law.

But they do get equal rights. It's just the wording that is the issue. The word belongs to the people of Canada. Not the gov't, not the dictionary, but the people.

Gays are not denied rights of any kind. Some people would rather they not be considered married.

A good way out of this would be for all gov't documentation to say 'civil union'. However, this upset a LOT of voters so it wasn't a good political move for Martin to do this. Martin was also APPOSED to this previously.

Majorities vote on rights for minorities all the time.

Decrminilization of pot is a good example. Most poeple don't smoke it, but the majority vote on if a person caught smoking it should get arrested.

I feel the same is true with the definition of marriage.

[mikedavid00]

Which party do you think those 58% support?

The Liberals probably have far more anti SSM supporters than any party.

I refer you to the voting demographic of their last election.

[geoffrey]

Which party do you think those 58% support?

The Liberals probably have far more anti SSM supporters than any party.

I refer you to the voting demographic of their last election.

I don't know if I agree statistically, but I see where your coming from. I think we'll see the most vocal naysaying of these issues coming from the Muslims in no time.

[blueblood]

Which party do you think those 58% support?

The Liberals probably have far more anti SSM supporters than any party.

I refer you to the voting demographic of their last election.

I don't know if I agree statistically, but I see where your coming from. I think we'll see the most vocal naysaying of these issues coming from the Muslims in no time.

hah, then they will probly repeal it because we'd be offending them

[betsy]

You're speaking of old customs of marriage. The issue here is about the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of the word, marriage. And I'm speaking about Western societies.

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition".

DEFINITION of the word marriage is the issue. You insists the definition of it being a union between one man and one woman had changed several times in the past....therefore I ask you, what other definitions were there aside from that?

You made a simple claim. I am asking you a simple question to back up your claim. Don't deflect the question.

[betsy]

But the definition of marriage is something different. It's a religious union between a man and woman to any religion in the world. It's a promise under God to uphold our vows. It's a moral, meaningful value to some Canadians and thus Canadians have the right to decide whether we want this to be extended to gay relationships.

Here is the crux of the argument. Religions may have a vision of what marriage is, but that vision doesn't apply to those who don't subscribe to religion. Many people have no need or interest in making a promise to some magic sky pixie, but that doesn't mean they don't want to make a promise to their life partner. That is why religion can't be given the mandate to define marriage for others.

What is preventing them from making a promise to their life partner?

Is there anyone here who says they should not and cannot?

Just basing it on purely religion-based pov, surely if they don't subscribe to religion....this should not be an issue at all. They'll just be as happy using any word they can come up with to celebrate their union. And I think the government would be as happy to recognize it.

And if they do subscribe to religion....then they know and understand why their kind of union cannot be accepted. And insisting that it should be accepted is stepping on religious freedom!

[betsy]

Yes, it's all perfectly legal! It's recognized! Practically most places all over the world too! Not just Canada.

Same sex marriage, huh? And you want to have a referendum why?

No, of course not SAME SEX marriage! Traditional marriage.

[MightyAC]

You're speaking of old customs of marriage. The issue here is about the TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of the word, marriage. And I'm speaking about Western societies.

Please distinguish for me the difference between "old customs" and "tradition".

DEFINITION of the word marriage is the issue. You insists the definition of it being a union between one man and one woman had changed several times in the past....therefore I ask you, what other definitions were there aside from that?

You made a simple claim. I am asking you a simple question to back up your claim. Don't deflect the question.

Here is a link to another post on SSM from this forum that quotes an article on the history of marriage from the week magazine. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=120635

Here are the quotes:

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567

Polygamy was also a legal form of marriage more recently than I had thought. It was legal in the US until 1862, China until 1953 and still exists in most African nations. Marriage was not traditionally 1 man and 1 woman, it has changed drastically throughout history...but then again definitions of words evolve. Hot and cool were at one time opposites, now they can also be synonyms.

[MightyAC]

The blacks do not see their fight for their rights comparable to gay "rights!"

Gays can enter any establishments, attend any schools etc. They are not segregated!

Why wouldn't they be content to have the union recognized as the counterpart of marriage in England?

Isn't your plan to call Hetero unions 'marriage' and homo marriage 'Civil Unions' seggregation?

Here is some advice from my parent's generation...perhaps it is your generation as well...anyway, I find it is still relevant today.

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'.

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'.

[normanchateau]

The state gives you a civil union and a peice of paper. But make no mistake the vows of marriage are officially anounced upon under God and a promise is whitnessed and signed upon. That to many people is marriage.

You seem to be implying that there's some need for a religious representative to be involved in marriage. An ever increasing number of Canadians are married by a Justice of the Peace (or the equivalent) because they see no need for religious mumbo jumbo or mythical bearded pixies in the sky to tarnish their vows to their loved one. Those who prefer to be married by an Imam or celibate Monk or Guru or Rabbi are welcome to do so but there's no need to invoke "God" or in the case of Hindus, multiple "Gods" and "Goddesses", in the marriage vows or in obtaining legal documentation of marriage.

[The MacQuern]

Everyone knows the separate but equal approach doesn't lead to equality. Appeals to tradition don't really cut it for me either. Societies progress and expand rights to more people. The old tradition of man/woman marriage is now being realized to be discriminatory. Appealing to tradition to deny the right of marriage makes as much sense using the tradition argument to continue slavery or no voting rights for women.

[normanchateau]

Part of the problem here is that conservatives gravitate towards tradition like bears to honey. Just look at some of the synonyms for tradition: habit, ritual, folklore. And an antonym: innovation.

[Black Dog]

Strafing run!

mikedavid00 Yesterday, 07:21 PM

Gay's can have all the same benefits as a married couple. It's the wording that has centimantal value to some Canadians. It belongs to us, not the gov't. The gov't is there to represent us, and instead have played closed door politics with this whole thing.

If the word belongs to you, then the government can't change it. If you recognize the government's perogative to define marriage, then you can't claim ownership of the term. If you deny the government has the right to define marriage, then no definition they come up with (one man, one womean, two men, one man, one goldfish) will have any bearing on the "true definition of marrige", so what does it matter what they call it?

Marriage is already seperated into civil and religious unions. It just so happens that they are both called "marriage." If you can't keep them straight (pun intended) that's too bad.

[normanchateau]

mikedavid00 Yesterday, 07:21 PM

Gay's can have all the same benefits as a married couple. It's the wording that has centimantal value to some Canadians. It belongs to us, not the gov't. The gov't is there to represent us, and instead have played closed door politics with this whole thing.

Marriage is already seperated into civil and religious unions. It just so happens that they are both called "marriage."

Maybe we could solve the problem by calling the civil ones "marriages" and the religious ones "unions".

Those who officiate at "unions" would be permitted to discriminate against lesbians and gays to keep the religious folks happy. Moreover, those who officiate at "unions" would be permitted to discriminate against anyone their religion deems worthy of discrimination.

[Figleaf]

... if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2.

Care to explain how? Equal rights are equal rights.

Look up equal in a dictionary. It does not mean 'different' it means the same. If 'marriage' and 'civil union' are the same, then why do opponents of SSM have a preference for the latter? They must be perceiving some DIFFERENCE that makes it appeal to them.

[Figleaf]

...It comes down to separation of church and state. Is "marriage" a term owned by religions? I would argue no, in which case the government should be able to use this term for anyone they wish and it would not infringe on the rights of Christianity or any other religion. But even if you want to make the claim that "marriage" is owned by one religion, why not have the government give EVERYONE a civil union with equal rights. Then, if you are a religious person and you want to get "married" you can do so, but it would be up to the church/religion to decide who they want to marry or not. ...

Of course this won't satisfy many religious types because their campaign is not about being left alone to do their thing, their campaign is really about preventing others from that same right.

Having both hetero- and homo- 'unions' come from the state while carving 'marriage' into the purely religious sphere won't work for them because some churches are happy to perform SSMs. So, all couples would have 'unions', and any type of couple that finds a church that works for them would have 'marriages'.

Which brings up another point ... if Parliament or a referendum purported to remove SSM, wouldn't that violate the religious freedom of churches who perform SSMs?

[Melanie_]

DEFINITION of the word marriage is the issue. You insists the definition of it being a union between one man and one woman had changed several times in the past....therefore I ask you, what other definitions were there aside from that?

You made a simple claim. I am asking you a simple question to back up your claim. Don't deflect the question.

My claim was that the definition of marriage has changed over the years, decades, millennia - you are deflecting the argument to say that I only was referring to the gender of the participants. If you read my post there are other issues, notably ownership and race, that have also changed. Why do you think women no longer have to vow to obey their husbands? Why do we now say husband and wife in the marriage vows, instead of man and wife?

Polygamy was accepted in biblical times, so obviously the definition changed at some point to "one man, one woman". I wonder how many people protested then that the "traditional" definition (one man, many wives) was being changed?

[uOttawaMan]

Meh, values change, and usher in new social norms.

Of course a few people cry foul, but it's a fact of life.

[mikedavid00]

Meh, values change, and usher in new social norms.

Of course a few people cry foul, but it's a fact of life.

So it's up to a judge or partisan politics to determin the social norms of our society?

That's what I call a non democratic

dictatoriship.

[Melanie_]

[so it's up to a judge or partisan politics to determin the social norms of our society?

That's what I call a non democratic dictatoriship.

I'd call allowing religion to determine social norms to be even more of a non democratic dictatorship. I'd rather have a judicial decision than one based on the irrational belief in mythical sky beings.

[mikedavid00]

[so it's up to a judge or partisan politics to determin the social norms of our society?

That's what I call a non democratic dictatoriship.

I'd call allowing religion to determine social norms to be even more of a non democratic dictatorship. I'd rather have a judicial decision than one based on the irrational belief in mythical sky beings.

How about the PEOPLE dictate what THEIR countries climate and morals be? That's the farest thing I think. And yes, most Canadians are probably willing to say that marriage includes gays.

I don't go to church. But I am a person who beleives in religion. The 10 commandments are the cornerstone of my personal ethics (although I probably can't name all the commandments). The sanctity of marriage includes that.

However, I do support gay marriage as long as it's not used for immigration purposes. If not, then I don't support it.

But that's just my opinion. Everyone should vote on this.

When I get married, I am not going to get married in a church and it will not be a Christian wedding. I'm Trudeaus dream in my personal life.

I feel like I'm the only openly democratic person on this forum.

[uOttawaMan]

Meh, values change, and usher in new social norms.

Of course a few people cry foul, but it's a fact of life.

So it's up to a judge or partisan politics to determin the social norms of our society?

That's what I call a non democratic

dictatoriship.

You find me some non-partisan politics anywhere, and I'll gladly eat this cookie.

[Black Dog]

How about the PEOPLE dictate what THEIR countries climate and morals be? That's the farest thing I think. And yes, most Canadians are probably willing to say that marriage includes gays.

The people do that everyday: thus the government's decision to allow same sex couples access to the legal, civil institution of marriage has no effect whatsoever on individuals' morals and values and whatnot.

Under the new (and I would say, improved) legal definition of marriage, people oppossed to gay marriage can still oppose it. Churches and temples can still hold marriage ceremonies and even refuse to hold such ceremonies for same sex couples if that's what they want to do. The sun will rise tomorrow morning.

The government's decsion to exercise its perogative to revisist existing legislation and the resulting changes to said legislation has no bearing on individual beliefs whatsoever. Why that basic perogative of representative democracy should be overturned in favour of mob rule on this particular issue is beyond me. Where are the cries for a referendum on Afghanistan? On the GST? The fact that the people who support direct democracy in the case of the same-sex marriage issue are silent in their advocacy of direct democracy on other issues of far greater significance is bound to cause some to question their motives.

[M.Dancer]

Under the new (and I would say, improved) legal definition of marriage, people oppossed to gay marriage can still oppose it. Churches and temples can still hold marriage ceremonies and even refuse to hold such ceremonies for same sex couples if that's what they want to do. The sun will rise tomorrow morning.

Those who have been fretting over whether churches would be "forced" to have ceremonies for Gays conviently ignore that many churches already legally discriminate and choose who they will marry.

For example....lets say you are a divorced baptist....just try to get married in a Roman Catholic church.....

Tell a rabbi that you are a divorced lutheran how is actually an atheist...try to get the synagogue to marry you......

[Black Dog]

Those who have been fretting over whether churches would be "forced" to have ceremonies for Gays conviently ignore that many churches already legally discriminate and choose who they will marry.

For example....lets say you are a divorced baptist....just try to get married in a Roman Catholic church.....

Tell a rabbi that you are a divorced lutheran how is actually an atheist...try to get the synagogue to marry you......

Why, Dancer: you make it sound as though many of the arguments against SSM are illogical, inconsistent or incoherent!

I'm still at a loss as to why, of all issues out there, same sex marriage is the most deserving of a national referendum. Someone? Anyone?