I really don't know why churches are so freaked out about potentially being forced into marrying gays. As it stands now, churches are quite selective about whom they marry, and reserve the right to refuse to perform marriage services on those they deem unsuitable. It's not like you would walk in off the street and arrange a service. For example, I couldn't walk into a synagogue and simply demand to be married. I'm not Jewish, nor is my husband. They would quite likely ask us to attend services and convert before they would consent to marrying us. Ditto for a mosque or a Catholic Church or any number of other religious institutions. Same with most other churches. Nothing would stop us from getting married at a church that agreed with our beliefs, or getting a civil marriage, and doing so wouldn't change our rights as a married couple.

The government cannot force churches to perform marriages - gay or straight - if the "marriagees" won't comply with the requirements of the religion in question. This is what the Charter protects under the religious freedoms law. I have yet to hear ONE gay marriage advocate demand that churches be forced to marry gay couples against their will. All they are asking for is legal recognition of their rights as married couples under Canadian law. The opposition is all scare-mongering - something the religious right does with considerable expertise in lieu of producing tangible facts to back up their bigotry.

Forcing gay couples to marry against their will? That's the "homosexual agenda," isn't it? Mandatory gay marriage! Adam and Steve! (Burgess.)

ps I would imagine that the homosexual agenda would be in a really tasteful font with suitably contrasting background colours.

hey yammer...keep it up..you'll be one of the first to be fitted with an 'asscam' by the religious police.

It is well documented that the institution of marriage in civil society is a stabilising influence. Married people live longer and are healthier than their unmarried or widowed peers. Marriage, in theory, provides the best conditions for growth and development in children. Two together can eat for less. Because marriage is a civil institution, the state is obliged by court decisions to interfere in its structure to protect the constitutional rights of minorities. The fact that the majority of public opinion favours full recognition of the right of gays and lesbians to marry is irrelevant. The constitution trumps public opinion anytime.
Attacks by christian fundamentalists on gays and lesbians are the whining bleats from those on the wrong side of the law who wish to whip their constituency into a lather and create trouble in matters that are none of their business. Churches are free to set their own rules but cannot dictate social policy in Canada. Democratic rights flow from less religous interference in the state, not more.

The very concept that churches and religeous groups are "moral" is purely a judgement call. And of course, we are all too aware that our religeous elites could never pass judgement on others. It's against the code and foundations of the "christian faith". So let's get ready for some decent rock throwing. Thanks Rafe!

Eddy
You state that:
"And of course, we are all too aware that our religeous elites could never pass judgement on others. It's against the code and foundations of the "christian faith". "

Buried deep within their dogma you will find things like "judge not..lest yee be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but our present reality must be observed from the perspective of court records.
Christianity may preach that sodomy is a grave sin but the courts dealing with the fallout of residential schools and various other typical christian acts have a slightly different view of christian morality.

I prefer the teachings of John 7:24; Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement. In other words... judge everyone and everything.

that is the human condition...the ensuing friction a result the criterions employed

I suggest that lust for power has corrupted the criterions employed by the buggered again christian ilk. (my rocks are nasty sharp and jagged)

If talking about religion has the potential for so much trouble, humans must naturally be troubleseekers, fumbling and stumbling around in the futile quest for absolute truth, some louder than others. It lets too many other religions off the hook to focus in on christianity and its flaws. It is a tempting target though...

tempting and too close for comfort
I tend to have numerous interests including zen philosophies but the focus my ire is reserved for the bullies of this world..ergo
...I hold mega contempt for the bush crime family and their assorted cohorts...especially the %$*%#&*^& christian factions.
I see their poison inexorably creeping into the Canadian landscape..our limited media offerings are a perfect example.

Sleepswithangels: How dare you appropriate a title from the sainted Neil Young, and then slander me with talk of an asscam? Hello, I did that already! It's called bowel cancer in the family! Bleah!

Hilarious, Rafe.

And that comment about including the Judeo part of the equation in this nonsense to make it seem like a more universal sentiment -- priceless.

I don't think that preventing common-law partnerships from being considered marriages would be too much to expect from religious fundamentalists though. Some sects in the US are even advocating a return to anti-witchcraft laws.

Ah, Rafe... first a small point: sleeping with someone while unmarried is not adulery, its fornication.

Your "Judeo" point alludes me. You may not know anyone Jewish who believes homosexuality is a sin. They exist! Phone an orthodox rabbi and ask.

Personally, I don't have any moral objection moral to gay marriage. I suspect civil marriage is a notion that is withering away in any event - and so what? I do have philosophical difficult with our Supreme Court, inventing something called "federal common law" so that they can strike out a definition on the grounds of discrimination. Most definitions discriminate. It's how language works! Whatever the morals of the decision may be, its bad law and silly reasoning; a worrying development given the increasing importance of Judges!

I also think that the government's handling of what an issue of minor importance to me, but very significant to others was shabby and cynical. Anyone who expressed a concern - stemming either from religious conviction, fears of judicial activism or something more mundane like the potentionally very large financial implications of the change- was immediately labelled a bigot. I lost a lot of respect for Paul Martin on this one.

yammer
Having enjoyed a personal moment getting shit faced with Neil 32 years ago..I make no apologies for my online handle or skewering you with a 'virtual asscam'.
Having society devolve to the point where religious police would use advanced technology to monitor our sex lives may sound absurd but when you have freaks like Rachel Marsden given space to rant in a national newspaper..how far behind can the asscams of the mullahs be?

name
I assume that you would prefer that Harper had blocked legislation indefinitely...to what end?

another freudian slip
my last comment should have been directed to john

Sleepswithangels

Lucky you! Neil's a god.

"Having society devolve to the point where religious police would use advanced technology to monitor our sex lives may sound absurd but when you have freaks like Rachel Marsden given space to rant in a national newspaper..how far behind can the asscams of the mullahs be?"

No quarrel there. Not sure where you get me sucking up to Harper though. I'm quite conservative, in that I believe in conserving things. I can't abide the Conservative party, who, like their Republican inspirations, are inflammatory radicals.

I assume you are new here. I won't accuse you of having no sense of humour, since I don't know you either, and because my jesting comment in this thread was not all that funny.

yammer
Please reread my last two posts..after my comment to you, which you just quoted, I directed the comment involving Harper to 'name', who happens to also be a poster on this site. Then I corrected that mistake.
Perhaps you could use the asscam to find your glasses.
Neil is a god..tho flawed like most of us..did you know that in the out takes from "The Last Waltz" you could see a big nugget of raw coke stuck in his nostril....apparently the buffet had more than cold cuts and smoked salmon.
If you want humour..check out the thread "Report from London" and scroll down to the last two posts.

For once I'm on the side with all the posters, damn, this is going to be a boring night. Where are the trolls when you need them?

SWA, I don't really care. If 6 gay men, 2 chartered accountants, a jack mormon and a farmed salmon all want to get married to each other I don't think they'll turn to stone, and I wouldn't hang myself over it. Hell, I'd cater it. My point is that there are serious people with serious reservations and convictions who caught smeared with the knee jerk bigot label. The whole debate was silly and made Canadian political discourse look rather glib if not stupid.

john
how can you have serious reservations about equal rights for all and not come off sounding like a bigot? I gathered from your first post that you didn't object to the law in principal but that you had problems with the way it was handled and how certain people were labelled bigots in the rush to legislation. Fine..but I was not aware of any 'serious' people of 'conviction' who were unfairly labelled. You can't be refering to any religious groups or individuals as there wasn't a single one, in my opinion, who came off looking anything other that what they are...repressed throwbacks.
I am glad you've found a use for farmed salmon though.

There are no shortage of bigots in the conservative party, I agree. Whatever they say, a lot of them look like the reason they're opposed to gay marriage is that buggery makes them weak in the knees. While they self-flaggelate, there are thinking conservatives in another sense of the word who have a problem with the discovery of a Charter "right" to marriage - for homosexuals or heterosexuals for that matter. Conservatives of this flavour see constitutions as documents which limit the exercise of state power, not as excuse for one branch of government to make stuff up as they go along just because they think something is fashionable and find the definition of a word discriminatory. They think this is a policy matter, in other words, for the elected branch to mull over and decide.

A serious debate would be centred not on the meaning of a word, but on whether it is prohibited discrimination to provide economic subsidy to one class of folks to the exclusion of another. Presumably, the ecomomic benefits conferred at one time on married hetro-sexual couples was intended not to encourage the placement of sexual organs in Christian sanctioned orifices, but rather to off-set the economic disadvantages associated with procreation - in the public interest. If this notion is outdated, then the logic is not to extend a needless subsidy to a new class of relationships, but to do away with the subsidy. Instead, we had a silly judge made law which more or less made up a common law strawman out of whole cloth just to strike it down, followed by a debate devoid of any discussion of substance. Will benefits traditionally provided to heterosexual married people be extended to same sex couples, or simply cancelled? If they are to be extended beyond past practise, why isn't it discriminatory to stop at homosexuals? Why shouldn't other relationships of dependance be included (why does there have to be sex at all? A rather perverse requirement, if you think about it), and how would the exclusion be consitutional? How will this be paid for? Why is an unelected branch of government making these decisions? I heard none of this. You?

As we all painfully know...governments take ages to pass laws of any substance. We still have legislation like the Indian Act which was a half assed attempt to negate the decades of genocide practised by various Canadian governments and entities like the HBC. How much longer will our First Nations people have to wait for just reparations.
So I'm sure we'll have to wait a little longer for benefits to be granted to..let's say.. a pair of drinking buddies or a group of Christians who ostensibly campaign against homosexuality but molest each others children in order to 'teach' them about the wrath of god.
I realise that this does not satisfactorily answer the questions you have posed but I got to take some cheap shots at buggered again christians.

John, I waded through your comments about the economic disadvantages of procreation, and find they are just silly. Homosexual and lesbian couples have raised families for the past two decades at least in our country, so there is no logical rationale for excluding them from marriage benefits. Sexuality should not be an issue, no, but evidently, it was. How do we know this? From the uproar by religious extremists to keep this right from a percentage of our population for no other reason than their sexuality.

More importantly, there is no logical rationale for excluding them from all protections afforded to heterosexual couples under our constitution. Whether conservatives harrumph about it or not, it is the governing consensus of our country. For one group of people to be excluded from its protection is a matter of bigotry and discrimination, not fashion. Or if it is of fashion, it is the turn of a whole age in which discussions which you would consider to be of substance have been rendered irrelevant by a social will to provide constitutional protection to every law-abiding person in our country.

Perhaps some of Canada's problems stem from an ill informed electorate. Judges don't make laws, they interpret them. They make decisions on the basis of sometimes bad laws the politicians have foisted on them. Some are more activist than others, but our constitution is a living instrument, and when people have gone a very long time without enjoying equal rights maybe it is time to act faster. There is no compelling societal reason to withhold the rights of gay and lesbians to marry, just as there is no reason to deprive others of rights just to make everyone poorer. The benefits of marriage outweigh the costs of extending benefits to same-sex couples.

Thanks John for setting Rafe straight on the meaning of adultery.

Making marital benefits flow on the basis that sex is happening does seem a little perverse but drinking buddies don't produce children (usually)and create no real value for society. And there should be some reward for being that brave (foolish?).
Supports like being able to deduct annual rental costs from taxable income would help many persons, including those in non-sexual, supportive relationships.

Camgra...I detect a feminine perspective and I like your POV
well..um.er..I am presently seeking angels and am unattached..r u single and seeking?

Te Aro Arahina,

I'm not sure what it is that you find silly. Is it the notion that there are financial costs associated with having children that makes you chuckle? Of course "homosexual and lesbians" raise children - since well before 1985 I reckon. And maybe it is a good idea to extend benefits to them and their children, regardless of whether they happen to be married. The flip side of your observation is that childless couples might reasonably be denied the benefits regardless of their orientation, n'est pas? My own view is that the economic construct of marriage (which a lot of us used to criticize as paternalistic and oppresive), is probably outmoded. Government might just get out of the business and leave it as a religious observance for subscribers only. Civil marriage makes about as much sense to me now as "civil baptism" would.

You say "there is no logical rationale for excluding them from all protections afforded to heterosexual couples under our constitution" and that statement has me puzzled. What are the protections you have in mind when you say such a thing? What part of the consitution protects married couples? Your just making something up. You'd make a good judge! Besides, this wasn't "an extension of a protection" it was the granting of an entitlement. Some people think there's a difference. Some people think that people who think there's a difference must be bigots. Such is the rarefied air of this debate.

Camgra - what are the benefits of marriage that you say outweigh the costs of extending benefits to same sex couples? Extending benefits (and I'm not worried about drinking buddies) could prove costly, and if it does the hands of government are tied now that the policy issue has become a matter of basic law. I'm not worried about that personally, but some sincere non-bigots are and its a reasonable point for discussion. But if we're weighing costs and benefits, what benefits do you have in mind?

Judges don't make law? Not so I'm afraid. Common law is often called "judge made law" usually quite uncontraversially. Here the Judges were "interpreting" the Charter - by making up stuff that isn't in it, and making up a common law precedent (the definition of marriage) just so that they could say it wasn't consitutional. I appreciate that law isn't a science, but it would be preferable if it wasn't a sham. I don't have a problem with Judges making up laws. I would like the process to be a bit more thoughtful and the written decisions a little less like Valedictorian speeches of well intentioned high school graduates.

Thanks for the exchange.

Camgra- regarding your belief that it is "well documented" that married people are happier- can't believe no one called you on that- I recall reading a while back that men are better off married, but that in fact women who remain single are happier than their married counterparts. "Married people live longer and are healthier..." is quite a statement- care to back it up?? Of course if one takes out the 50% divorce rate, abuse, dependency issues, cheating on one's spouse, etc... I guess I could see your point.

John;
In an earlier post in this stream I mentioned a few benefits married people enjoy, and which are likely to apply equally in the case of married gays and lesbians. Also see above. The point isn't sexual orientation but committment. Your point about the common law is valid, but the common law leaves less freedom for a judge to be activist than a new law or statute does.
Fii;
The benefit of greater happiness is based on self-reporting and is a moving target.
Well documented in this sense refers to the volume of material, it is my mea culpa not to have been more clear.

I would have said something but I was trying to pick Camgra up...alas, a short while ago, she spurned me in another forum...I am hoping this still does not preclude a blow job and a hot, sweaty fuck.

Dear S.W.A

I'm not female but I work in the medical field. Medical writing and charting etc has probably had an irreversible effect on the sound of my written voice.

...and yes, it will preclude the above, although I wish you the best of luck in your search. You have not been spurned, you've been burned, but no hard feelings.

whoops...foiled again..glad you are a good sport though.
I believe these forums offer an invaluable way for us to express ourselves in a manner that transcends what we are capable of in our face to face encounters. Hopefully, practising this uninhibited communication will allow us a greater freedom of expression with those we interact with 'out there'

100% of the shots you don't take don't go in(Wayne Gretzky)

now I've never tried to shoot anything into Wayne Gretsky..because I don't play for that team...but I hope that doesn't preclude me from being curious

Fii, and hence, Camgra,

It certainly caught my eye, "It is well documented that the institution of marriage in civil society ... etc." Marriage, as we know it, is one of many civilized living arrangements. Others are even better at raising their children.

While it might be true that men, within married couples live longer than those that don't, it's not possible to use this factoid until you determine the mechanism of their longevity. It might simply be timely CPR.

I disagree, marriage is not a civil institution, it's a religious one. Although, that distinction seems easier to say than to interpret. I'd guess that marriage is a mechanism used to organize society. The state's involvement in Christian marriage is an artifact of the state's evolution from a religious organization to a secular one.

To dfp
Thank you for raising the point about validity- my reading on this has been in the area of Psychology, although I cannot, at the moment, direct you to the specific research. Try giving it a google.

I maintain that marriage is a civil institution, subject to whatever tweaks by the state are necessary to ensure equality rights are enjoyed by all. Those rights include NOT having to profess any religion at all and to still have a LEGALLY recognized and bonding contract. But I would agree that it has been an evolutionary process. I just think that Canada has evolved to a higher degree than some fundamentalist christian countries, like the USA, where radical reactionary religious politicians practise poisonous policies, pumping God's word into a long-dead constitution and sleeping soundly at night because the bombs are falling far away.

What's your original question - What's the point of marriage? ? Options include; increasing the health of participants, well developed children, and sharing the tangible benefits of the partnership.

To my eye, and in a ruthless spirit, marriage is about social structure. And in the sense that I'm most familiar with, that structure follows the Christian line: Obey Our Father. Wives obey their husbands. Children are to be seen and not heard. And husbands kowtow to fellow in the big house down the street.

I think that our social structure was well established before the advent of our democratic states.

Ok, so that's my position. How do you figure it's a civil institution?

Hmm, here're the googles:

Ruth: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=483&letter=R

But I muffed kowtow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowtow

What are the unintended consequenses of playing with definitions? Will we have to change laws about polygamy, adoption, animal rights etc?

Someday we may have to change laws regarding polygamy, but our criminal code, constitution and societal values will only support consensual polygamy, not the twisted form of kidnapping practiced by certain Mormon sects.

Google polyamouryfor some people's take on multi-partner relationships.

There is an ever-so-slightly slippery slope lurking here, but only for consensual relationships....

Obviously religious people as well as others are selling their point. And as the article states, that's okay.
I mantain that using section 15 of the Charter is off base.
There is no evidence that homosexuals are a separate species entitled to minority status as defined by section 15.
I suggest that homosexuals spend some scientific time making their point that a different lifestyle equals special status.

The current system is clunky, but it evolved that way as a means of correcting what our society perceived as historical injustices, and it is important not to go back to those injustices, in this case where religions decree what is a suitable marriage for anyone other than their followers.

As for protections accorded by the Constitution, the argument that our Bill of Rights already covered them only goes so far in practice. Obviously, this group of people felt they were not protected. Why? Because, in practice, they weren't. So make it plain and clear that religious doctrines do not determine who is excluded from protection in Canada.

As for the whole business of allocating tax credits on the basis of marriage, I agree. It should be on a per child basis and set on net income assessments for the entire family, married or not.

"I suggest that homosexuals spend some scientific time making their point that a different lifestyle equals special status."

Ron, perhaps you can share with us the scientific evidence you posses that proves homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. No licences and no tax benefits. The only thing that should be kept is to allow a pension holder to designate a dependent (could be any kind of dependent!) to get the same benefits as we currently give to the spouse. Take the money we save, and increase child tax benefits and daycare funding instead.

Verso; That's a rhtorical question. I am asking what scientific proof you or anyone has that supports the use of section 15 of the Charter ( read it ) that homosexuals are a different species or have any self evident affliction such as race-age-dissability or sex. In otherwords I am clearlt asking if there is proof that homosexuals have some kinf of actual physiologocal difference in their makeup vs. me. If not it can only be possible that they are asking for their lifestyle to be defined as a dissability or something ? Please help me understand how minority status as defined section 15 defines homosexuluals as being any different from smokers, who do not get any protection based on being a minority.

Ron Erwin you're twisting the charter to suit your bigotry. Speaking of rhetoric: "...it can only be possible that they are asking for their lifestyle to be defined as a dissability or something". Section 15 (i suggest you read it) is not limited to individuals with disabilities, so get off yer high horse on that one.

We can sit here all day and go back and forth asking each other for "scientific proof". It's not going to get us anywhere. No, there is no "gay gene" as some have put. There also is no "cultur gene". Culture, which is essentially learned transmitted behavior, defines one's ethnicity, which is defended under the charter. Now, I'm not saying that "gay" is an ethnicity so don't think about twisting that one either. I'm merely pointing out section 15 is not limited to biological or physiological traits Ron Erwin.

So now, lets get to the bottom of this. I doubt very much that your sole purpose for speaking out against gay marriage is because you're oh so worried about the charter. You've show enough contempt for 'liberal' processes in the past that you're really the last tyee regular (with the exception of sirj) who would defend the charter and what it stands for. I also doubt that you'll ever enlighten us with your real reasons for being against gay marriage.

To Ron E. Most people don't require an explanation regarding one's need to understand another. For those that do require an explanation... let me express that no explanation will ever suffice.

Re: " There is no evidence that homosexuals are a separate species entitled to minority status as defined by section 15."

Thanks for this, Ron, I couldn't agree more. Homosexuals are not a separate species. As such, we are entitled to the same rights, benefits and responsibilites as all other Canadians. Including, now, the right to marry the person that we love. There is no special protection, no extention of extra benefits. We are now the same in the eyes of the law.

How interesting that people will defend their right to choose a religion, but not my right to choose who I can spend my life with.

I find it even more interesting to hear the rationale behind those who think that the government should stay out of marriage altogether, but offer no other proposal or alternative for people who still wish to be married, but outside of traditional religions which they do not respect.

Te Aro Arahina: I understand that you see state marriage as an alternative for those who wish to be married but outside "traditional religions which they do not respect". Fine - it just strikes me as a pointless and rather clinical alternative. As I said, it has about as much significance as "civil baptism"?

It seems to me your turning things on their head: The old alternative for those who did not wish to be married because they didn't respect traditional religion was to live together without being married. As far as I can determine there is no stigma associated with this arrangement any more (score one for the progressives!). If someone has some profound need to be married in an untraditional but religious way - well, there are no shortage of religious orders which offer this alternative.

For sentamentalists this seems preferable and far move moving then insising that the government sanction a union, making an expression of love and commitment look like the acquisition of a driver's licence or a hand gun!

Since the civil ceremony was already in place, and is the current social norm, I see no reason to deprive adults of its stamp-of-approval, clinical or not. I think a lot of modern married couples combine civil ceremonies with their own hybrid events. It can make for some very creative celebrations. I'm amazed at how conventional these individual ceremonies turn out, with traditional garden parties, flowers, receptions, pictures, gowns, etc., etc. --- haven't seen anyone ripping their clothes off and copulating on the altar in front of all their assembled friends and family yet. Would probably back my way very nervously and carefully out of the ceremonial area if I ever did.

I've just scrolled back and read some great comments. This is a very lively and thoughtful board, I think.

About 5 hours ago, Deeby posted, in reference to the concern that gay marriage might lead to polygamy: " There is an ever-so-slightly slippery slope lurking here, but only for consensual relationships....". I've never really understood the nature of the slippery slope problem here, or with the companion argument "this will lead to the acceptance of bestiaility". Is the argument that same-sex union will be inevitably followed by a Charter challenge to provide equal benefit for polygamists? If so, based on what Section 15 group? I don't really see that Ottawa will be obliged to extend public benefits. etc, to polygamists by the slip of this slope.

The question of whether the criminal code prohibition on polygamy would withstand a charter challenge is I think an entirely different question. The question here - is it really against the law for one person to "live conjugally" with (cohabitate and have sex with?) more than one person? Would the offence of polygamy survive a constutional challenge in the 21st century is a nice question. I suppose the evolution of the concept of marriage has blurred easy distinctions...

Te Aro Arahina I know a few couples who've bothered to get the piece of paper. I've been some great parties too. Like you, I've never been to a bodice ripper with copulation on the altar. But as Voltaire said, I'd defend their right to do it - and insist on my right to be there.

When I've asked my non-religious friends who insisted on getting the marriage license why they were doing it, I always had the sense that it had something to do with the fact that living common law was seen to be a bit hippie or something. The best reason I heard though was from a friend of mine who practises family law. She said the only reason to get married these days is because splitting up is so much easier if it comes to that! So much for pathos.

Here we go round again, thanks Rafe . Allot of folks are desperate to disguise their bigotry with intellectual
debate. If we have learned one thing from history its that the church has always been the leader in blocking
minority rights, weather it be native , women and now gay rights. Kind of like a pervert morality only concerned with
abortion and gay marriage but never justice and poverty issues and never issues of war and peace . Just a happy little
army of conservatives feeling self righteous and praying for more good men like George Bush. Sorry folks you pay the same taxes you have the same responsibilities you get the same rights. We don't need the church and folks like Randy White telling us what normal is.

Anytime I hear leaders start talking about God and country its time to run to the hills.

John, when I pointed out that advocates of consensual polyamorous marriage may someday attempt to claim the same rights now granted hetero/homosexual couples, it wasn't my intention to start creating a whole inventory of potential problems with the recently revised definition, (e.g. I find the beastiality argument utterly absurd).

My point, (not made very clearly), was that limiting the marriage contract to two consenting adults might be considered arbitrary under the law. Why not three or more, assuming that rights/responsibilities (mutatis mutandis) are adhered to? How does one justify withholding it under the charter just because more than two parties wish to enter into the agreement?

The point being that it seems hard to argue against without employing similar arguments to those being advanced against same-sex marriage now....

RON ERWIN:
I am tempted to let others' eloquent words expose the poverty of ideas you have but some things merit repetition.
Also, I smoke and don't believe smokers should enjoy special rights.
First:
recognizing EQUALITY rights means the state cannot single out some segments of society for special treatment, such as depriving gay and lesbian people of the right to marry, or sending persons of a specific ethnic origin to concentration camps.

Second:
The onus is not on a minority to "prove" it has special status. That is the point. Gays and lesbians want equality, not special status. There is a bias you do not reveal that makes your position on this issue irrational.

Canada continues to reap the benefits of a more open society than the US. Some of the people who didn't vote for Bush because he hates them, are moving here to get married and bringing their creativity with them to stay. Reminds me of Germany in the '30's etc...

Deeby, I think I understood your point and if I didn't make it clear I find the bestiality objection absurd too. I did hear it often expressed by people in the same breath as polygamy (and incest!) but I agree its a whole other kettle of wish.

Your point about consensual polygamists asserting that denying them the benefits of a contract of marriage is arbitrary provokes these reactions: the first one is repetitive, I'm not sure what the benefits of civil marriage over common law unions are. By the way, before the Surpreme Court (or maybe it was the Ontario Court of Appeal first) invented a common law prohibition on same sex marriages in order to strike the prohibition down, Common Law same sex relationships were recognized by the courts all over the place including in this country for the purpose of dividing assets, support payments, etc, etc. This is to say that the Court more or less fibbed when it said that the common law didn't recognize gay marriages. It did so- just not state "solemnized" ones, whatever the hell that means now!

The second observation is that I'm not sure we have marriage contracts any more. The associated tort for breach has long ago been extinquished. I think what we have is a religious sacrament, with may but not must be coupled with a civil "solemization" of that sacrament. It makes about as much jurisprudential sense as civil baptism. WhatI mena by this is that increasingly marriage is meaning de-hitched from the moorings that gave it any significance. I don't care. I will mourn the loss of the institution to more than I did when they closed limbo.

The third point is that while it may be arbitrary for marriage to be limited to a union of two, the fact that a law is arbitrary isn't enough to make it unconsitutional unless, e.g., it discriminates on the basis of one of the characteristics set out in the Equality provision of the Charter (sex, race, religion, etc). Unless there's some other consitutional problem, I suppose...

Bill C-38 does a lot more than change a definition - it sets out a half dozen or so amendments to various acts including the Income Tax Act. Before declared polygamists get a reasonable shot at claiming a right to the benefit of, say, the family trust provisions of the Income Tax Act it would have to be shown that the denial offended the Charter in some way. To advance any argument successfully, the claiming polygamist would probably have to learn to read and write - but that's another issue.

I just wish some of those consequential amendments had been debated a little more thoughtfully, is all...

WAY TOO MANY TYPOS. I NEED GLASSES. IGNORE ABOVE PLEASE

Deeby, I think I understood your point and if I didn't make it clear I find the bestiality objection absurd too. I did hear it often expressed by people in the same breath as polygamy (and incest!) but I agree its a whole other kettle of wish.

Your point about consensual polygamists asserting that denying them the benefits of a contract of marriage is arbitrary provokes these reactions: the first one is repetitive, I'm not sure what the benefits of civil marriage over common law unions are. By the way, before the Surpreme Court (or maybe it was the Ontario Court of Appeal first) invented a common law prohibition on same sex marriages in order to strike the prohibition down, Common Law same sex relationships were recognized by the courts all over the place including in this country for the purpose of dividing assets, support payments, etc, etc. This is to say that the Court more or less fibbed when it said that the common law didn't recognize gay marriages. It did so- just not state "solemnized" ones, whatever the hell that means now!

The second observation is that I'm not sure we have marriage contracts any more. The associated tort for breach has long ago been extinquished. I think what we have is a religious sacrament, which may but not must be coupled with a civil "solemization" of that sacrament. It makes about as much jurisprudential sense as civil baptism. What I mean by this is that increasingly marriage is being de-hitched from the moorings that gave it any significance. I don't care. I will mourn the loss of the institution no more than I did when they closed limbo.

The third point is that while it may be arbitrary for marriage to be limited to a union of two, the fact that a law is arbitrary isn't enough to make it unconsitutional unless, e.g., it discriminates on the basis of one of the characteristics set out in the Equality provision of the Charter (sex, race, religion, etc). Unless there's some other consitutional problem, I suppose...

Bill C-38 does a lot more than change a definition - it sets out a half dozen or so amendments to various acts including the Income Tax Act. Before declared polygamists get a reasonable shot at claiming a right to the benefit of, say, the family trust provisions of the Income Tax Act it would have to be shown that the denial offended the Charter in some way. To advance any argument successfully, the claiming polygamist would probably have to learn to read and write - but that's another issue. (I should hardly cast stones...)

I just wish some of those consequential amendments had been debated a little more thoughtfully, is all...

Ron, your opposition to C-38 on the basis that it shouldn't be using chapter 15, is misleading. Chapter 15 guarantees the law does not discriminate against any individual. There is no onus to prove that homosexuality is natural or has a scientific background, as the same clause protects against religious and national differences. No one has ever proven that by adopting a religion, one is changing their genetic makeup, and thus whether homosexuality is a choice or condition is and should be entirely outside the legal limits of a state. Also, physical differences such as race, age, disability are listed as particulars, not exclusive categories upon which discrimination are made.

The change is from marriage being a union between a "man" and a "women" to between "two persons". Defining a marriage as such is recognizing that the state has no jurisdiction over what for all intensive purposes is a tort contract between two individuals, and will not allow the law to serve as a discriminatory factor for those choosing to enter such a contract.

When people start bringing up the "next we'll have polygamy and bestiality" argument, it's a good clue that they see homosexuality as pretty much the same as those behaviors. That is at the essence of their opposition. They wonder why and how society could not only permit but now celebrate something they see as deviant and abhorrent.

These people lack the intrapersonal skills to identify their own bigotry, set it aside and ask themselves the real question: "Why should I even care if two people I don't know want to get married?"

Ignition - I agree with you about the polygamy and bestiality slippery slope argument. I don't care if 2 people I don't know want to get married. But the reason C-38 is a perfectly valid subject for a public debate about public policy is that it changes a lot of statutes and has financial implications. Also, some of us think the expansion of the insitution of marriage is a step backwards. This isn't all about bigotry on one side, and love and celebration on the other. It would be preferable if we could talk about this issue without throwing the homophobe label around, don't you think?

So asks John. I think that arguements revolving same sex marriage very quickly come back to the homophome issue because typically that's the root of arguement against. I still have yet to hear a good sound arguement against same sex marriage. But it changes a lot of statues and has financial implications? Of course it does! By that logic, should gov't discontinue drafting and passing bills. Bills have implications: they change statues, they cost money, they tie up resources. Suddenly, it's convenient to use this arguement as a case against same sex marriage? It's weak at best; therefore, it begs the question, what is the root of arguing against same sex marriage?

I should point out that I have many gay friends, and I'm honoured to have attended the wedding of two of them last summer. I also have friends in open/poly relationships.

My speculation regarding polys claiming marital rights has nothing to do with prejudice. It's mere speculation on what the extensions of certain legal principles are.

I might add that my questions have been well-answered above by John....

mbraun,

Because passing laws have implications beyond hugs and kisses suggests to me NOT that they should never be passed, but that they should be debated and considered. A debate is not an exchange of insults - except in Ottawa. There have been a fair number of arguments advanced here that make out a reasonable case that extending the outdated and vacuous concept of civil marriage to same sex couples serves no useful purpose and might have unintented effects. It something that could be discussed by reasonable people, and on point on which reasonable people might ultimately disagree.

One alternative suggested here by someone and elsewhere by many (including the liberal government at one tiime) would be for government to divorce itself from the inherently religious concept of marriage completely and replace the civil concept with all purpose registered dependant relationships. Such a civil registration would serve all sort of ends, and it far preferable in my view. It might be wrong, but being wrong doesn't make me a bigot does it?

...an interesting possibility, which would allow my poly friends to take advantage of state-sanctioned tax subsidies related to dependence, currenly denied them because such subsidies are reserved for those who are married/common-law.

... yes. Or two sisters. Or two friends. Voluntary relationships of dependancy... I think France went for this alternative rather than same sex mariage. It better keeps the nation out of our bedrooms. Vive La difference!

John,

Stating that extending the "concept" of civil marriage to same sex couples serves no purpose is an opinion as is the belief that it might have unintended effects. I really hate using the phrase "there's no proof..." but in this case I believe that it applies. Here's the thing: I was married in a civil ceremony and it was hardly something that felt "outdated and vacuous". And I find the fact that you believe civil marriage serves no purpose a little insulting. My marriage serves many purposes far beyond the economic advantages. It was important for us (my wife and me) to get married because it confirmed our relationship/commitment to each other. The purposes that it served are intangible and if it's not for you, so be it.

Now that said, I also feel that when someone argues against extending rights/benefits/or whatever, to a group/minority, there are deeper underlying reasons for it that go beyond the concern over procedural matters. It would really bug me if I had every legal right to get married but my gay friends couldn't. So again, i go back to your opinion as to why you believe same sex marriage serves no useful purpose or how it may have unintended effects.

Is the answer because you believe - and I think you've hinted at this - that marriage is a religious concept only. If so, then you're wrong. Marriage, or the concept of, has existed far longer than the religious cermonial aspect of it. Marriage has existed in as many different forms as there are different cultures on this planet. Some where/are based on economic allegences between different families, some are not ceremonial and are matrilineal meaning that the man goes to live with the women's family - hardly traditional in your sense of the concept.

What I'm getting at is marriage is subjective. Some couples in are society get married for religious reasons, for other it's strictly financial. Heck some people get married temporarly for reasons of obtaining citizenship.

You said that you think that gov't should get out of the religious concept of marriage. In many ways it has. My civil marriage had no religious undertones to it at all. Do you have a problem with me being married? If not, then I ask, why such an issue with same sex marriage?

No, mbraun, I don't have a problem with you being married. I just wonder why the state needed to licence the arrangement.

I agree with you that the history of marriage probably has much to do with economics and politics (I think that is what you are saying) and I don't doubt that making a committment to another person has a personal significance that can be seperated from the political herritage of marriage. I just question whether this need be the business of the state. To the extent that goverment wishes to subsidize certain relationships, I think they can do it in a better way than granting marriage licenses.

But what do you suggest John is place of the civil marriage with it's $100 marriage licence. Perhaps, we could privatize it ;)

I don't doubt that relationships are subjective and come in many forms. One of the unintended effects of the evolution of the concept of marriage has been the increase in state involvement in intimate relationships. How? Well, if you think about it, it is now just about impossible for a cohabitating couple (be they straight or gay) NOT to be considered married in the eyes of the law. Even if a couple doesn't wish to go get a marriage license, they will still be considered to be in a common law marriage whether they wanted this relationship or not. This now applies to gay couples too. ( I credit a gay friend with a counter cultural bent for this observation). I don't think this is what we meant in the 60s when we tried to convince our parents that shackin' up was okay.

I suggest leaving religious marriages to religious institutions. I suggest a process for civil registration of dependancy relationships. And I suggest you and your no doubt terrific wife could have entered in to a perfectly valid marriage commitment between yourselves without state sanction.

"No, mbraun, I don't have a problem with you being married. I just wonder why the state needed to licence the arrangement. "

Maybe because the state consideres mbraun as equal as even you John,
LOL, Why don't you scrap you license John, I guess you comment means that you don't mind others getting together as long as they don't get the same label as you, you know having the same name "marriage " conflicts with your religious belief system. That's all its about , all the intellectual debate all boils down to a bunch or right wing bigots like Steven Harper, Stockwell Day and his ilk . Basically the church is becoming less and less relevant in society which is what really pisses you off. You can stand on the corner with your anti abortion signs but sleep fine while the Christian empire rains bombs down on Iraq.

Anyway the good news is that John and Ron can now get hitched, you know be ligit.

Your post is bizarre Stuart. I'm not married. I'm not a Christian. You know nothing about my religious belief system. I'd be happy if "the" church became less relevant, but I doubt its true. I'm pro-choice. I do not wish to marry Ron. Ron and I aren't sleeping with each other. I am against the war in Iraq.

I guess you've demonstrated that it possible for purported left wingers to be anti-gay and bigotted too....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strawman

Think before you post Stuart. Your arguments would be more ligit that way....

I think if your honest you will admit, most folks opposed to same sex "marriage" are usually religious folks who cannot
live up to their own standards of purity. Just ask yourself for what other reason would folks make such a big deal over the word marriage, anyway allot of churches have been evolving over the years and this is just a natural event for society. I also find it amusing what people get upset about , John for example is upset that someone is granted a license , it bothers him that the state would treat another couple(gay couple) the same as anyone else. Anyone opposed to another group wanting equal rights is either racist or basically a bigot. We had the same intellectual babble when it came to women's rights, native and other minority rights etc. It was a crime as Rafe points out to be gay , I find it funny so many church goes will get upset over this issue while their government commits unspeakable acts of genocide in their name. Kind of of like selective morality .

and deeby, I wonder what your like when your not trying to be clever.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=straight%20man

"By the end of 2002, at least 500 people had come forward with claims they were abused by Boston-area clergy, and the archdiocese faced millions of dollars in civil lawsuits. "

Who needs gay marriage, allot of churches keep it in the family. Especially when it comes to your boys. If only
Eve didn't eat that apple. Evil women

It's not rocket science Stuart.

Someone takes legitimate exception to extending de-facto state-sanctioned economic subsidies to particular groups over others, (in this case hetero/homosexual couples), and your response is to misrepresent such arguments as coming from religous motivations. Sure sounds like a strawman to me....

Why not address the point?

should a declared couple, regardless of sexual orientation, receive tax breaks and other considerations under federal law over a single person?

I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of same-sex marriage, but if you're making any attempt at intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'll agree that this is a hard question to answer.

John did well to bring it up, and you do a disservice to the whole debate by trying to misrepresent him as a religous nut.

Oops, missed the italic button. Should read:

Why should a declared couple, regardless of sexual orientation, receive tax breaks and other considerations under federal law over a single person?

Stuart makes very ligitimate points by bringing religous intolerence into this debate. Whenever there is a debate about same sex marriage, it inevitable reduces itself back to that point.

I'm still not sure why John is so opposed to civil marriages (gay or otherwise). He's raised the point (incorrectly) of describing marriage as inherenty religious. I've been arguing that marriage is subjective, and John, I believe, agrees with me on that point. Therefore, he wonders why should the state issue a marriage license at all.

So John, do you believe that the church should only be in the "business" of legally sanctiying marriages? As I see it, from your point of view, you think that non-religous couples who wish to make a committment could simply remain common law and still reap the benefits of marriage. Is this summary correct?

If so, then it is about religion, and I can only suppose, more specifically, it is about the Christian definition of marriage. This definition (i.e. that of a man and woman) is relatively new in the history of the concept of marriage. The church didn't even sanctify marriages until the 16th century. And when the church got into the business of marriage, it borrow largely from pagan ceremonial rituals.

Perhaps John, by having a civil marriage ceremony, some of us are just reclaiming the real tradition.

Okay, you guys, tell me what tax breaks are you are talking about? I did a couple of friend's - married couples - taxes this year and until they added in their spouses they were getting money back, after one couple each owed the other couple "lost" about $1500.00. According to the Revenue Canada statements they've gotten back their taxes were correct so where's the tax breaks? They and I would really like to know for future reference.

Blondie... your friends will recover thier losses within a short period of time when one of them dies and leaves a pension behind for the other one.

Eddy, I have been told that you can "leave" your pension to someone other than a legal spouse. I have not bothered to check this out yet. Kind of a head in the sand thing for me I guess. I work with one gay fellow and he is already on his partners medical and dental plans and they both have ,he says, wills living everything to each other, so other than Canada Pension - what? Is this a recent adjustment?
By the way I'm not against same sex marriage as far as I'm concerned you love who you love. I just want to know what they have been denied. By the way I've never been married either and don't see the big deal of a piece of paper so civil or religious it's a moot point to me.

OOPS! that should have been "...wills leaving everything..."

The issue here has nothing to do with human rights or discrimination. The hysteria has been engineered to create yet another dipshit issue that has no relevence to anyone except those willing to buck up a marraige licence tax and, in doing so, take the real issues of poisoned land and air off our collective minds. Anyone care for another mercury cocktail or how about some PCP laden trout or apples? How about a cigarette to avoid all that auto exhaust we inhale 24/7?

I think the question is: why would anyone be influenced by a bunch of ideas as stupid as those espoused by any religion? Grow up, people. Some guy named, I think Saul, or Paul, after he saw a light or something going up to Damascus,figured it was even an abomination for the voice of a woman to be heard in the church, and heaven knows the torah and talmud are just full of similar crap. I read in the old testament where it says that a disobedient son should be stoned to death if he fails to shape up. It's especially disgusting to think that millions of modern people believe the Christian crap when in actuality "salvation by belief" is probably as dumb an idea as the theory of evolution by so-called natural selection, which anyone with a decent brain can understand simply prevents change, instead of causing it, as Darwin pretended he believed. As far as gay marriage, well it's a good idea because it's fair. Anyone who opposed it is an idiot or is lying to appease some other idiots.

Hey "BLONDE PITBULL" allot of folks married in the church don't take the vows to seriously either. 1 in 3 ends in divorce. More rights are afforded to those of married status, so the court basically says that rights should not be different based on others religious belief systems. Like survivor rights, under the old system a gay couple of 20 yrs could not claim survivor benefits , only next of kin .

"should a declared couple, regardless of sexual orientation, receive tax breaks and other considerations under federal law over a single person?"

Well I'm not sure deedy, is that really the issue, if so than please explain to me why John is concerned about the state
calling the union marriage, the word marriage has nothing to do with tax breaks. It's just another way for religious folks to argue the point without actually saying their bigots. If John really cared about tax breaks then why does he care about the word marriage. And another point when you say declared couple it sounds to me that your devaluing the fact that 2 gay people are now married, I wonder if yourself and John ran around upset before claiming that married folks sorry"declared couples" got extra benefits. When did this become a issue . Anyway I don't yet see society coming to an end.

Actually, Stuart they aren't married but they've been together for a long time now. I'm not upset by this topic at all and should any couple, gay or straight, I knew, decided to get married I'd be the first to congratulate them. If survivior rights are going to change now so that gays are included good for them. My comment was that being married is not generally a tax break -until as Eddy pointed out, you are retired. And I wanted to know when same sex couples were able to share benefits as my friend does. Is this a recent change?

mbraun,

I think a lot of what I've said has been twisted around. It is ironic I guess because what I started out saying was that an opportunity for reasonable debate was missed and replaced by name calling. Stuart comes along and says I'm a bigot, anti-abortion, and cheering the death of Iraqi children because I don't see a lot of point to extending civil marriage per se to same sex couples - or a lot of point to civil marriages. I think most recognize this little observation doesn't make me homophobic - and I fail to see how anyone could think it means I'm in favour of the American invasion of Iraq! I don't want to be mistaken in my comments - you and generally most other participants are making reasonable observations in my humble view, and I'm enjoying the exchange. I'm going to think a bit about what you said in your last post...

I don't read his objections as having anything to do with the state's calling the union anything in particular. His point is that having the state license particular types of dependent relationships, and confer benefits based on its recognition of those relationships, is by nature exclusionary.

Granted, expanding the definition to include same-sex couples eliminates one group that was historically discriminated against, but it does nothing to correct the fact that there is still a particular class of people--couples--that receive benefits that others (e.g. single people) don't.

For myself, I'm not so sure that providing special benefits to couples is such a bad thing, but I don't think it's necessary to heap scorn on someone who believes otherwise, and automatically assume that they're a homophobe or a religious dupe.

Stuart, I don't really want to go through every you make - so I'll pick one. As deeby points out, you are a fan of strawman arguments. One is that I have an objection to the name marriage - that I don't want for some reason people to call themselves married, bla, bla... I think if you actually read anyone of the (admittedly typo ladden) posts you would discern that I have no such preoccupation.

Here is a list, Stuart, of the laws that were modified by bill C-38 while you were saying what's in a name:

1. Canada Business Corporations Act
2. Canada Cooperatives Act
3. Civilian War-related Benefits Act
4. Divorce Act
5. Federal Law and Civil Law of the Province of Quebec Act
6. Income Tax Act
7. Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act
8. Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act

I'm not sure what changes to those various acts will mean. Maybe not very much! Anyone who started asking what the point of it all was called anti-gay.

I've been to a couple gay weddings. And, as it turns out, one aftermath party of a gay divorce! I have no objections to them what so ever. That the friends getting married felt they had to ask the government for permission to marry makes me curious... but its ultimately none of my business, I guess...

deeby - thanks.

I guess I'm thinking (a) why do we have civil marriage - what was the original reason, what was the public policy objective, etc, etc... (b) do we still need it? Occam's razor, anyone?

I think the public policy objective is prima facie straightforward: encouraging couples to register themselves as such, either through marriage or common-law declarations encourages stability within relationships and provides a benefit to society as a result.

But such stability would seem to presuppose something like traditional fidelity/monogamy, and that's not always an ingredient of modern day relationships, particulary in the gay community.

Maybe it is an anachronism....

mbraun, whether religious or not - Is there any argument here that marriage at least used to be an oppressive instituion. ( I appreciate that you are married - and I mean no personal slight). In our culture was it not originally a way of passing dowery from father to husband, and creating obligations concerning the (in effect) care and feeding of the wife?

It was I understand not until the mid 1800 (in the UK Canada and the US) that the law of marriage was altered to permit married woman to own property. Married woman were precluded from employment or entry in to professional bodies in to the 20th century! In the US, it was not until (I've just learnt) 1965 that the Supreme Court of the US struck down a law which forbade married women from using contraception! And only in 1967 did the US Supreme Court overturn a law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying. Oh, and in 1975 the law in Canada finally got around to allowing wives to have their own credit cards without the consent of their husbands.

I wonder whether extending this proud institituion to same sex couples is really worth it...

I think so, Deeby... but I have no problem with people wanting to do something anachronistic if it has meaning and significance for them.

deeby:
"particularily in the gay community"

Do you have any real evidence that members of the gay community are actually less monogamous than people in other relationships?
If not, you may be reinforcing a negative stereotype. If you do, it is usually best to provide it at the same time as making statements like the above.

No insults intended but I find once pushed allot of the arguments end in the simple fact that folks just don't
want gays getting married or having the same legal status. Like when a Steven Harper says, why can't they
just call it a civil union or something else. It goes back to the fact that their is allot of fear and hate for those
who do not follow some Christian doctrine, the work marriage is very important to the religious right.

To not allow couples to call them themselves married is very symbolic, yea their together but just not quite
as normal as us married folks . So we end up skewing the issues with things that have never really mattered to
anyone and have been of the radar.

Like it or not , labels are very important in our day and age . The church is evolving over time, I say within 25 yrs all
churches will be performing gay marriages , except maybe the Catholic church.

and John, the law is always evolving and changing also, and if laws were just in the first place than their would
be no need to change them . This kind of change is healthy , heaven forbid us to drift in fundamentalism like in the
US. Cheers

my coven is dedicating all our ceremonies in the month of august to visualising a return to the days when christians were fed to the lions.... we are big believers in the power of creative visualisation

no..really

if we can't imagine lions...coyotes, racoons, wolverines will do

The small-minded bigotry in Canada, where RKlein is "chagrined" that Alberta has lost the battle against gay marriage, is most hypocritical in a province with the money to ensure that no one falls behind. Ralph Klein is the worst example of a politician who is so caught up in pandering for votes that he will overlook the problems of many to take care of the few. The media has given this fascist a free ride and needs to ask why anyone in such a rich province needs to go to bed hungry. Does anyone squirm in the knowledge that we enrich this regime with every tank of gas that we buy?

Camgra
I'm well into my 50's now and have given up driving...I always did ride bikes as well and now it is my main form of transport. I kickbox, which carries on a 30 year involvement with martial arts and as a result am as fit as I was in my 20's.
I noticed that my metabolism was slowing down in my late 40's so I got rid of the car. We all need to do the same. The oil cartel is running and ruining the planet at such a pace.. and nature is responding in ways that are becoming more severe every year.
The fight for gay rights is symbolic of the fact that there are elements within society that are trying to claim back the planet..for the people..the many..not the few.

Stuart - what is the legal status of married people that disguinshes them from unmarried people? I thought the concern was that people who aren't married are being denied some benefit or protection and therefore aren't equal. Other people have argued here that there are few if any disticnt legal benefits associated with being married - and that may be right. There is almost no distinction between how married and unmarried couples are seen in the eyes of the law. I think that basically undisputable fact is one that's more or less snuck up on us.

Thanks for dropping the insults.

Well John if you don't support the war in Iraq then I'm willing to cut you some slack. I think the justice movement (hence gay marriage, minority and native issues , Women's issues) environment movement and Peace movement are all connected and
cannot function alone to be successful. Lets sit back and see how this plays out, I tell you one thing that urban folks support gay marriage and that's where the votes are. Bring on Steven Harper.

Well, we disagree. Let's leave it at that.

The good news is that with the discovery of single nucleotide polymorphism, it's entirely likely that future versions of humanoids will be able to screen out bigots and creeps and religionists, so that consciousness will be able to assume its destined meaningfulness on this planet. So far we've missed the mark by a lot shot.

TG

presently...a major stumbling block to your hypothesis is the fact that the companies responsible for current research read like a who's who of Republican Party sponsors

a little 'snip' here and another 'snip' over there and presto..new american babies might all grow up to look and talk like jeb or dubbya

Or Ron Erwin, now that would really be a crime against Humanity

I forgot to add that that all male appendages and orifices would be eliminated in order to eliminate temptations...reproduction would be exclusively carried out in test tubes..ask Ron..I'll bet he bears a striking resemblance to a labratory flask...the horror

I haven't laughed so hard for weeks. Didn't Aldous Huxley touch on this topic?
Makes me want to go forth and multiply. Just to shove it to George 7, or whomever is in charge.

Dean Koontz wrote a thriller about a maniacal 280 lb., built like Hulk Hogan who had no sexual organs..just a little pee hole..very scary stuff..no outlet 'blowing off steam' so to speak
Don't laugh about Koontz (not to be confused with Steven Koontz who is a right wing nut), he is definitely a left leaning populist author..wrote a great novel which trashed the US war on drugs and their corrupt proceeds of crime legislation...eg: if they charge you with a drug offence they don't have to prove guilt..they can even drop the charges..but they get to keep whatever property they seized...the yanks make Hitler look benevolent by comparison.

Then you will be chagrined to know that this is now also legal for the state to do in Canada. Growbusters turns all kinds of non-drug related assets to the state.

The major differences are that in Canada proceeds go to the central coffers and the prosecuters must be able to adequately show that non-drug related assets like land and vehicles were obtained from criminal enterprise.
In the US..whichever police force seizes the assets get to keep them and there is no burden of proof....both measures are tailor made for corruption..as a result, there are over 50,000 pending law suits against the police for wrongful seizure.

Whew... this thread got long in my absence. Can I just say here I think Angelina Jolie is F'n amazing!!!! I read interviews with her and it's like- wow, the woman thinks like I do. Why have babies when there are orphans to adopt? Why get married? Why are the media taking pics of her on a merry-go-round with her son when children are dying by the thousands in Africa and it's barely being documented? She is the epitome of compassion and strength and independence. Yeah, a bit off topic.

probably doesn't really need marriage tax breaks either. It's nice that some of the proceeds from Gollywood get spent decently. Gollywood is still in the advanced category when it comes to media spin.
Gollywood pays a lot to mainstrm media in advertising space, time etc, and closes off avenues for indies. It's almost 100 years old.

looks like sleepswithidiots has finally had his knuckles rapped by the editor. about time. he's also trying to mask his gay-bashing ways by looking sympathetic to the cause. typical hypocrite.

sirjohna
you have obviously gone and sunburnt whatever is left of your brain..I have welcomed sirjohna back to this site only to give him some more 'medicine'..then he should crawl back under what ever pile of "precious" slime he is calling home these days.
Let's recap:I've stated that I believe he is an inbred, homosexual pedophile. He has replied that I am gaybashing even though I have taken pains to explain that the word 'homosexual' is being used as an adjective, not a noun. This simply distinguishes him as someone who molests male children. Yet instead of raising hell with a lawyer and denying my claims he rants on about gay bashing..even though I have challenged him to prove it..he can't.
I can just imagine him talking to a lawyer about this...I will post a simulated dialogue..a la "report from London" at another time. Actually, it is a little hard to picture him hiring a lawyer because I believe he has married a sister or first cousin..like his name sake..Sir John A. MacDonald, and she probably brings home the bacon so he can pester lefties until...
"in fact the only emotion i get from this website is pure glee at making you lefties shit your pants with frustration"
This is not a guy who can afford a lawyer.
Of course he may not be married..someone suggested he was Rachel Marsden...my analysis would not differ too much if this was the case.I asked him if he was Robin Sharpe and he didn't deny it..he vanished.

We know for absolutely sure he is a lying, hateful, small minded, deluded fool with major self esteem issues....evidenced by the following quotes:

"big eddy; i'm extremely intelligent. 2 degrees, top of my class. your post made absolutely no sense."

"i have no grief. my life is wonderful. i'm very happy, have great family and friends, and am very well respected in my community."

Who in their right mind would come out and try and get us to buy such horses***.
My detailed analysis will follow in due course..but I'll leave you with this:
Was watching a rerun of DaVinci's Inquest the other night where Matt Frewer was playing a serial murdering, sex criminal, compulsive masturbator and it occured to me that his character, as portrayed, was probably a better human being than sirjohna.

are you so stupid that you have to copy and paste your own posts to each thread?

did I miss any?...you should step back and read yourself sirjerkoff...though if you could see it and change..we would have you around to despise as much

It’s simple

Marriage is a religious ceremony and the state should not be involved. If a Church wants to marry a gay couple, then so be it, if they don’t then it is not our business.

It’s pretty clear that the Charter of Rights would include Civil unions and the governments have a duty to treat people equally, so that is what the government should stick to. This would have made 90% of the gay couples happy and the problem would die a natural death. The whole purpose of this being pushed by the Liberals is to make their opponents look bad in the polls. Not exactly a good foundation for good law.

One of the problems with this new law of course is that once you have opened up the meaning of Marriage, it could lead to a situation where any form of marriage would have to be legal. So Bigamy laws could be struck down as they may be considered to be discriminating.

Sleep
I suspect that you are one of the reasons why the site owners are starting to clamp down on content of the posts.

The meaning of marriage has changed since we woke up to the fact that women and children have rights and that, in our society, it is not simply an arrangement to help make men wealthy.
Bigamy is illegal because it is based on unequal power relationships which tend to be exploitive of women and children. On balance, it is prudent to protect vulnerable members of society even if a much smaller minority is negatively affected. It is ridiculous to equate loving commitment between two persons, regardless of gender, to the wet dream of twisted men too immature to develop relationships with mature women.

Sorry Camgra, but your view of Bigamy would be considered “hateful”. As a Muslim who converted in Malaysia I could have had more than one wife (gasp, being nagged in surround sound!! No thank you!)
The purpose of this was original to ensure that women (and their children) had a social safety net, in example if my brother died, I would be expected to marry his wife and look after her and her children as my own. You are correct that the system is open to abuse, which is why Muhammad spelled out that the man was to provide a separate house for each wife and had other requirement also. (he had 7 wives)

Also in an agrarian community it does make sense to have a larger family unit, in order to be able to harvest, child care and other duties.

I have no problem with a woman marrying 2 guys openly, I have yet to meet any woman dumb enough to do so. :-)

Bigamy does not protect women and children, which is the main reason that it is not legal in Canada, although it is practised in parts of BC. There is plenty of evidence available, outside of MSM, to conclude that these cults are run on the dictates of a few men who provide an education to the youth that was outdated generations ago. Their "wives" are little more than breeders and tend to be in their teens. The educational system perpetuates the power structure. These cults hide behind freedom of religion to abuse children.
Rights are not absolute, including the freedom of religion. Civil society has fought for centuries for freedom FROM religion.
Raising the spectre of bigamy is a distraction: marriage is a matter of commitment, and belongs to the people.

Camgra
Believe me, I don’t support bigamy either, however once the “traditional” definition of marriage is overturned, then it will be difficult to argue restrictions which may be considered discriminatory. In fact some people will argue that your view on bigamy is similar to other peoples view on gay marriage. Just because some people abuse it doesn’t mean everyone will.

Colin
It is just as easy today, post Bill C-38, to argue against bigamy as before.
The 'traditional' definition of marriage has already been overturned by:
-granting equality rights to women,
-allowing married persons to divorce,
to name only two.
In a gay marriage which ends in divorce, there is no doubt about who is divorcing who. In a marriage of three parties, whom is divorcing whom? And what about child protection?
Our common law is flexible enough to be applied to both gay and straight marriages and divorces. But it is silent on answering the two questions I raise above.
My views on bigamy are considerably more clear headed than most of the views I read against gay marriage. Many, if not most of its opponents, cite god or a subjective interpretation of the bible to make their point that it is wrong. They are short of empirical evidence.
Much as we might disagree on this point, I appreciate our ability to debate it rationally, without name calling and abuse.

This point about the ‘evolving” definition of marriage was actually brought up by my sister and wife who are both lawyers as a concern. Our law is based on precedent and it sometimes has a habitat of creeping in directions that were unintended.

Your posts suggest more thought than those of many others, informed by legal thinking as it is. Canada's justice minister is a former human rights lawyer and Harvard lecturer who is far more articulate than I in arguing why there is no analogy berween gay marriage and bigamy.
I agree that our law evolves, sometimes in strange ways. Pedophilia masquerades as art.
Corporations have acquired power by earning 'human' status in the law, using specious arguments. We have a rule of law that places everyone below it, except the queen, and she doesn't even live here, even though, in law, she owns the whole country.

Speaking of corporations having status as legal persons, has anyone considered that the new definition of marriage as between two persons, rather than one male and one female, appears to make corporations eligible to marry? Has this question been raised anywhere, or is anyone aware of any other legal implications or bars to this?

corporations already DO marry -we call it a merger.

It will be interesting when one of their "offspring" sues them for support...

It's a done deal, I love a minority parliament. Last night at 11.15 eastern time the senate made gay marriage official. The debate is over as far as the law goes. Don't like gay marriage, vote against your MP next year if they supported it, congrats to those Canadians that feel equal rights belong to all Canadians regardless of their religious belief system. And for those conservative fear mongers like Harper , Manning, Stockwell Day , get ready for the apocalypse or move to the US were God lives in the White House.

Stuart... you need to refine your research. Preston Manning supports the constitution upholding the rights of individuals and their differences. He himself is a Christian and supports his beliefs by working very hard to protect freedoms for all. He is recognized by many Christian websites as a leader for moderate values and tolerance. It easy to get carried away painting people with the same brush, but in reality it just doesn't work. How do you want to be addressed?

I'm not sure I remember why Manning didn't stay with the Reform Party. It has since had leaders, like Day, who maintains that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs and who expects to be taken seriously when commenting on affairs of state.
But Manning was a strong proponent of a flat tax, which is right out of the Libertarian handbook. And he demonstrated a willingness to rely on material from the Fraser Institute, a place where he is now a "fellow". The Fraser Institute is NOT a model of moderation and tolerance. Using flawed researching techniques(and getting the answers it wants), it seeks to undermine civil society by highlighting failures of government and making a case that business can do it better. What a surprise that their answers always please their patrons in business.
H.L.Mencken said there is nothing more hypocritical than a christian businessman. I would add that there is nothing more dangerous than the combination of christian fundamentalism and business greed.

Point taken. clubofrome.

I don't mean to paint everyone with the same brush, but when it comes to conservative minded right learning Christians
you don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find the bigots , Hypocrites and hate mongers. I wonder how many
ministers watch FOX news and other world events and consider Gay Marriage as the most important moral issues deserving more attention then the vast poverty and inhumanity that's going on at this moment. Basically the Liberals are setting up Ont and Quebec and the East coast for the next election, it won't take long for folks to remember the old intolerant Reform party. In fact most Urban centers where most Canadians live support Gay Marriage. I think Stockwell has a safe seat( the religious freaks in his riding don't even like a statue with an exposed male *****) but the conservatives are going to get swamped, even with the scandal their falling in the polls.

an exposed male Pen** LOL, censore time

...Whatever, perhaps he wears a clown suit to bed too. What he didn't do is jump up and denounce gay marriage, at least not that I can find any quotes. I think that was the context of this thread....
...I also believe Day was refering to his own family tree that walked with the big reptiles...

The flags are at half mast in Vulcan, Alberta...

...for it truly is a sad day in the land of dinosaurs. Ralph Klein is chagrined.

Come on don't be mean, Ralph has one true love, the bottle. LOL

He must have been tipped off on C-38, figured why fight that loosing battle anymore...Hey waddya say we slip private health care in today too!

It must be wonderful to live in a place like Alberta, where people appreciate common sense and good government. Here in B.C. there's frantic opposition to a government that is only marginally right wing, if that. In fact the new group may be right in the center of the political spectrum, but at election time every lefty in the province will cry foul-play and try to replace for the sake of doing so.

The next time Ralph gets divorced(he has been once already)he does not have to marry a man. Paul Martin should phone and tell bill C-38 does not make it mandatory.

Marriage for two people of the same sex is a personal issue not a moral issue(in the sense that gay people are intrinsically immoral).

The right wing politicians and churchs have just lost their number one fundraiser.

Bill C-38 changes the structure of marriage as we traditionally know it. Can someone tell me why the gay community would not be satisfied with, for lack of a better term, a 'civil union', with all the same rights, benefits, and obligations as traditional marriage?

Nemesis:
"Traditional" marriage was changed when married people got the right to divorce.
If it has all the qualities of "traditional" marriage that you mention, what is wrong with calling it marriage? Would non-gay couples want their marriage to be called a civil union? I am married, non-gay, and see no reason to discriminate.

Just to keep things fair, since traditional couples could not get divorced for a long time, I think that all gay marriage done for the next 10 years should be required to stay together for at least 10 years.

That is cruel and unusual punishment!

I think that some people tend to oversimplify the relationship between the word morality and the church. Although the word morality is known to most, it is perceived in an esoteric sense based upon the ideology of the person or group that is hearing the word. It has become a sort of go to word to link in an abstruce way, a sense of puritanical tyranny and religion, particularly the Christian religion.

For example, Rafe raises the issue of the church moralizing about masturbation, which is known to be a common practice for most men and women in society. Rafe say the church sees this as immoral. I suspect he is attempting to link the normative social behaviour of masturbation with the possibility that 'immoral' behaviour like homosexuality might soon be considered normative and thus is like masturbation. The easy leap is that the church or religious groups are out of touch.

In fact, I believe Christ took the position that masturbation was an unkind or unloving act when sexual gratification was achieved at the expense of some unknowing 'other party'. I can't imagine that most people who masturbate think about finger painting over the duration of the act. Within the 'spirit' of mutual love, kindness, caring and respect that binds us together as people who love themselves and in turn their neighbour, masturbation was considered a little selfish, almost abusive like rape in the spiritual sense.

Rafe admits that historically it has been important for the church, and indeed society, and later nation sates to not promote homosexuality, but instead the family and the production of offspring within that family. Certainly, homosexuality could not have been the flagship of such an endeavour.

I think and Rafe is a Christian who knows this very well, that Jesus' teachings about love and tolerance would always trump moralizing in a mean and judgemental fashion, a characterization which is all too frequently place upon these teachings by people who don't like religion necessarily, but particularly glass house religious people. Although I agree with Rafe that governments need not cowtow to demand of religious leaders, in a democratic society a religious person has the same right to vote as a non religious person.

Governments are decided by voters, so whether some people like it or not, the policies of political parties that aspire to form government must consider their policy initiatives with a view to the beliefs of all citizens, including the religious ones.