polygamy

March 22, 2005

I think the real problem stems from the fact that historically, marriage has been an institution originating in religion (spiritually-based doctrines) and defined as such. Even though today, we’ve got all kinds of people getting married, religious and not so religious.

Marriage is not just about people proclaiming their love for each other and wanted to spend their lives together.

If it were, then why can’t three people get married to each other? Why can’t I marry my brother or my cousin? These types of unions have been defined in society as deviant. Don’t argue that it is biologically harmful because these types of unions have been banned before anyone understood that they could have harmful physical and mental repercussions. These types of unions have been collectively defined as aberrant in predominant religious, or moral, codes. So has marriage between homosexuals.

This is why people argue that if homosexuals are permitted to “marry”, then other types of marriages, such as polygamy should also be allowed.

When arguing for or against marriage between any individuals other than a man and a woman, we must understand that marriage rules are not currently and have not historically been necessarily “logical”. We can argue until we’re blue in the face about how we’re all equal, we should be allowed to do whatever we want, if you can get married then whey can’t I … etc, etc. But ultimately, we have to understand that these arguments have no logic, because the rules the have traditionally governed marriage have not necessarily been logical, and are obviously illogical to many people today. The rules that have traditionally governed marriage have just been based on collectively agreed upon morals (call this religion or whatever). Two men cannot get married because they just can’t. I can’t marry my cousin because it’s just gross.

What we’re now saying is that these morals may be wrong. Fine. But I think that we need to understand that moral convinctions cannot always be logically explained ... and this whole debate on marriage is inextricably linked to society's morals, religious or not.

March 22, 2005

I'm going to very tentatively and very briefly step into this discussion.

I just don't buy the "slippery slope" argument in this case. Homosexuals will be allowed to marry because to deny them that right is a violation of the Charter. Sexual orientation is protected under the Charter. Polygamy and incest are not. Some people argue that they could fall under religious freedom, but these freedoms are not limitless. Fierysweet, I agree with you to a point that up until now, all of the above have not been allowed, because we as society deemed them to be deviant and against our moral beliefs. However, accepting one of these (homosexuality) does not mean we have to accept all of them.

March 22, 2005

I would just like to point out that calling someone "homophobic" because you think their arguments/opinions show evidence of homophobia is not analgous to calling things you don't understand "evil". It seems to me that calling people who point out your shoddy reasoning and question true motivations "ignorant" is much more analgous...

But I think I will step away from this argument now, mainly because we've strayed so far from the original issue that I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, and most of what I take issue with in your recent posts, Canmic, has nothing to do with marriage at all. Your comments about the struggle for women's rights are consistently disturbing (i.e. your suggestions that one never happened or was needed) and your use of bizarre and unrealted anecdotal evidence (i.e. the stories about border crossing) are just too frustrating and I am too tempted to respond inappropriately.

Yev

March 22, 2005

Basically we disagree over whether the benefits outweigh the problems, but there is a deeper issue too. In cases where the benefits do outweigh the problems, you also have to look at who gets the benefits and who gets the problems. If they aren't the same people, then you have to take a more critical look at things. For example, in the case of capital punishment, the 'benefits' clearly outweigh the 'problems', BUT the person getting all of the 'problems' gets non of the benefits. I'm not saying it's the same thing, just showing that who gets what is relevant too, not just the balance sheet.

You mention that in such a cost-benefit situation, one must take a more critical look at who gets the benefits and who gets the “problems”. This is why I have asked you several times to discuss for me why/how redefining marriage negatively affects you (as a non-gay person). That is to say, do the costs outweigh the benefits for you? From our discussion so far, you haven’t really provided any real “problems” that would be incurred by you. You’ve listed what you feel are some potential problems but how about giving me some non-hypothetical problems/negative costs that would actually be incurred (ie. if marriage is redefined today .. then xyz will happen rather then simply xyz may happen)? Does anything come to mind? I have thought about how redefining marriage would affect everyone and so far the pluses seem to outweigh the costs associated with a specific group. Perhaps I’m overlooking something which is why I ask you to think about it some more and get back to me if you wish. The example you gave is a very extreme one (where one side wins ... one side loses everything) and in my opinion this is not a very analogous example to model to the current situation.

Do you really really really think that a company that is breaking the law now, by discriminating against gay couples, will stop discriminating against them if they are called 'married' ? Remember the 2 different checkboxes?

Whether or not such a company stops discriminating is something that both of us cannot guarantee. However, by redefining marriage we are making it harder for them to discriminate based on their intolerance which in my opinion is something good and worth working towards.

That brings up my next point, do you think that there would not be an uproar if, for example, a bank loan application had a 'gay marriage' and 'straight marriage' box? I think a lot of people would object to having to specify if they were gay or straight to apply for a bank loan. I think if it was me, I would object too.

There will be people who will object but I don’t think it will cause an uproar. If people are going to have uproars about having to check different boxes, it would much more likely occur as a result of what you suggested earlier: that is leave marriage alone and call gay marriages something else ... such that some people end up having to check a “married” box and the rest end up checking an “others” box.

As far as US politics, all I can say is that George Bush and his friends make most homophobes look like the good guys in all this. I remember a statement by a US congressman a year or two ago on the whole gay marriage issue, he actually said "Those homosexuals are never happy, we gave them the right to be homosexual and now they want to be married too!"

I’m not surprised if those words actually came out of Bush’s mouth. He’s surely said and done some not very politically correct and intelligent things in my opinion … and as an aside … doesn’t he have one of the lowest IQs of a US president? *laff*

For the other poll, I think that including the bi-sexuals boosted the number way above 10%, and even using your numbers, I think that if 25% of gays don't think the definition of marriage should be changed, that's pretty significant (not a majority, true). Consider this, as you said yourself, 5-10% of the population is gay, so clearly the straight population is a huge majority, does that mean that 5-10% is 'insignificant' ? It is still over a million people, that's a lot of people to me.

I missed the fact that your numbers included “bi” individuals. If you’re going to include bisexuals then I have to say a few additional words. From my experience, bisexual individuals tend to be more closeted about their own sexuality. This additional "closetness" often translates into differences between the way gays and bisexuals view same-sex relationships. The “same-sex” encounter for bisexuals may be just that … an encounter. Therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if these individuals identified themselves as bisexuals in an anonymous poll .. yet didn’t support same sex marriage. Even though they may engage in sexual contact with the same sex … they often prefer to identify themselves as "curious" and in terms of marriage, it also seems rather common that many feel that they have to marry someone of the opposite sex in order to raise/have a "family". Therefore … their view on the gay relationship may not be the same one I hold as a gay man. One possible interpretation is that bisexuals generally do have sexual encounters with the same sex but they don't see more developing (ie. a LTR) with the same sex perhaps because they haven't been able to reconcile their true preferences with other strong "beliefs" in other aspects of their lives.

Regarding your insignificant comment, I didn't mean that 25% was insignificant. Rather my point was that your 5% difference statistic does not necessarily lead to a significant difference. I provided an example where if a poll was taken and 5% of the voters were gay ..... then your result essentially becomes 0% of the gay voters are against redefining marriage.

I certainly don't confuse morals (defined by church dogma) with ethics (what is right and what is wrong). I don't think that being gay is 'wrong'. Morals can only define what is in keeping with or against a given moral code. Many people confuse the two, that is true, but I don't. As I've said before, people who label things they don't understand as 'wrong' or 'evil' (or homophobic) are just being ignorant.

That would have been a good interview question, "Explain the difference between ethics and morals". If I ever interview candidates, I'm gonna ask that one make them sweat a bit!

By the way, one argument often used in the past (and maybe still used, I dunno) by those who say that homosexuality is 'wrong' is that it is an evolutionary dead-end. I'm not saying I agree with it, just showing a non-religion based argument. Which it must be because the church doesn't agree with evolution either.

But, I don't think that anything that doesn't hurt anyone either directly or indirectly is 'wrong'.

I’m glad you don’t get the two confused because the church is 100% guilty for teaching their church dogma in schools as “right” or “wrong”. Regarding the argument about homosexuality being wrong b/c it is an evolutionary dead-end …. why does natural selection simply not drive the process to get “rid” of homosexuality? Obviously, benefits associated with homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view do exist …. In that case, why is homosexuality still “wrong”? Is reproductive success/capability the only measure of whether a behavior/lifestyle is deemed “right or wrong” from an evolutionary stand point? And what makes reproductive success/capability the “correct” measure for accessing what is “right or wrong”?

..... I say hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23, 2005

nvm

March 24, 2005

Ollie, actually, the supreme court has effectively ruled that the federal government DOES have the sole authority to define marriage. Now, by saying that, they were saying that the current law, as enacted by the federal government, is valid, and that provincial governments, and courts, cannot over-ride it using the charter. This is why they did not answer question #4, because the answer was already in their answer to question #1. The man/woman definition of marriage is NOT in conflict with the charter.

Sexual orientation is protected, so, for example, if a company tried to deny benefits to same sex legal partners (common law or civil union) that would be against the charter. Not calling the same sex union a 'marriage' does not violate the charter, as the charter says nothing about the right to call anything by a specific name.

I have yet to see anyone point out anything homophobic in any of my statements. The closest I have seen is "I don't agree with your argument, or I don't understand it, so I'm going to assume it is not the real reason, so I will ascribe to you the motive of homophobia because I cannot understand what other motive you might have" That's like saying that since I have never seen you eat, I am going to assume you have an eating disorder.

Redefining marriage won't make it harder for companies that are already breaking the law to discriminate. It will still be exactly as illegal as before, with no new legal arguments or penalties. Actually, it is illegal to require marriage for spousal benefits, even in the case of straight couples. For example, if a single man lives with his mother who is his dependant in an 'equivalent to spouse' dependancy relationship as defined by law, then the company must provide his mother with the same benefits they would provide a spouse, no exceptions.

It might give something new for people protesting against the company to shout and put on their signs, but legally, it will make no difference at all.

As for the check boxes, if the government would just define a civil union and stay clear of marriage, then 'marriage' would cease to be a legal term (civil union or whatever would be). Then, the banks would actually have to change all the forms, and straight people and gays would all have one box, backed up by law.

There is another reason, by the way, why my arguments aren't 'homophobic'. Remember that my fundamental solution to all this is for the government to leave marriage totally alone, and to give EVERYONE 'civil unions' or whatever. Not 'marriage for straight people and civil unions for gays'.

Then, those who want to, can go and get married, in the church (or whatever) of their choice, provided that church agrees to perform the ceremony. The charter protects the churches from being forced into anything, and all is happy.

That is basically what they did in France, and now most of the straight couples aren't 'married' either, just 'civil union'.

This way, those of us for whom marriage is an important institution, and wish to get married, can do so, within the definition of that 'important institution'. Each religion could recognize or not recognize whatever marriages it wanted to and everyone is happy.

For example, right now, in the case of man/woman couples, the catholic church does NOT recognize marriages outside the catholic church (with the exception of some of the 'orthodox' churches which are actually catholic in one form or another, and high anglican, which is also basically catholic without a pope). Now, the new law does say that they would not have to PERFORM these marriages, but, it does not say that they would not have to RECOGNIZE them, why does this matter? Well, what about baptism of babies? the catholic church officially will not baptize a baby whose parents are not married (as they define it). Would the new law force them to do so?

I don't want to get into the debate of 'right or wrong' in the case of church dogma. The fact is, it is what it is, and changing it isn't something that should be done by the government.

Actually, by the way, George W doesn't have a low IQ, he's well above average. (I am NOT saying he's smart). He's quite a bit above Kerry and Al Gore, but below Clinton. Regan of course, had alzheimers, so that's a whole different story...

As far as the whole evolutionary argument, there has been a great deal of debate and some research done into the issue. A big problem is that both sides don't seem to be sure which way they want things to go (and not in a good, ie: unbiased, way).

If there is a 'gay gene' or combination of genes, that would support the argument that being gay is just part of who someone is, and isn't 'caused' by anything environmental. This would take support away from those who view it as a psychological disorder. BUT, if there is a 'gay gene' then it could be seen as a mutation, and mutations are often associated with abnormal or diseased states, from a physiological (not psychological) standpoint, also it lends to the argument that gays are somehow 'different' on a basic level from straight people, so that makes the whole debate quite messy and often not as scientific as it should be.

But, to answer your ending comment/question, they have actually found a particular gene that has something to do with the way the auditory system is linked into the emotions that is different in a large number (I think it was 75%) of lesbians but not in non-lesbians.

Basically it had something to do with the release of 'happy' chemicals to higher pitched voices in gays and lower pitched voices in straight women. I read about it years ago so I don't remember all the details, you can probably find the paper in pub med or something. Don't discount the study based on my description, I remember that the way they did it made sense from a research standpoint, but I don't remember the exact details.

Of course, that all leads to the interesting question, but not the current topic of debate, suppose they found a pill that made gay men/women straight. Then what? (nevermind the possibility/impossibility etc etc argument, suppose it existed, then what?)

March 24, 2005

Sexual orientation is protected, so, for example, if a company tried to deny benefits to same sex legal partners (common law or civil union) that would be against the charter. Not calling the same sex union a 'marriage' does not violate the charter, as the charter says nothing about the right to call anything by a specific name.

Excluding same-sex couples from civil “marriage” is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Under the Charter, if there is a line drawn between gay and lesbian people and heterosexual people, and that separation reasonably violates their human dignity, then discrimination is established and s.15 of the Charter is violated. Therefore,not calling a same sex union a “marriage” does violate the charter because it is the sexual orientation of the individuals involved which effectively permits opposite-sex couples to “marry” and not same-sex couples.

Redefining marriage won't make it harder for companies that are already breaking the law to discriminate. It will still be exactly as illegal as before, with no new legal arguments or penalties. Actually, it is illegal to require marriage for spousal benefits, even in the case of straight couples. For example, if a single man lives with his mother who is his dependant in an 'equivalent to spouse' dependancy relationship as defined by law, then the company must provide his mother with the same benefits they would provide a spouse, no exceptions.

It might give something new for people protesting against the company to shout and put on their signs, but legally, it will make no difference at all.

Such companies currently require employees to be “married” in order to receive spousal benefits, and if gay couples are “married” under the law, then how could this possibly not make things harder for such companies to discriminate or if taken to court, how could no new basis for legal arguments not result?

As for the check boxes, if the government would just define a civil union and stay clear of marriage, then 'marriage' would cease to be a legal term (civil union or whatever would be). Then, the banks would actually have to change all the forms, and straight people and gays would all have one box, backed up by law.

Originally, you said “the government would only confer civil unions and the churches would only confer marriages.” You’ve also said that if the government would just define a civil union (for all) and stay clear of marriage then the word “marriage” would cease to be a legal term … How do you expect marriage to cease from being a legal term if at the same time, your expectations are for the government to steer clear of the word marriage? I don’t see how what you suggest could be possible because the two seem mutually exclusive to me.

I don't want to get into the debate of 'right or wrong' in the case of church dogma. The fact is, it is what it is, and changing it isn't something that should be done by the government.

So are you saying that because it is what it is .. that we should just accept it for what it is without questioning?

March 25, 2005

I know of a city in BC that practices polygamy. Frankly, I think it's disgusting. Most of my disgust stems from the fact these "extra" wives are children. Moreover, it's disturbing to think that the girls in these polygamist societies are taught to "build a husband's kingdom." Gee, that set back feminism a few centuries.

They also like to keep their blood line "pure." I heard that there is incest to a certain degree since everyone seems to be related to one another. I mean, it's polygamy - what else do you expect?

There's incest, sexual abuse among children - all very sad.

March 25, 2005

Ok, first off, as far as the charter and the current law. Maybe you disagree, but the supreme court, who are basically supposed to be the ultimate experts on the charter and the constitution said that the government can define marriage as man and women if it wants. I think that arguing with an existing ruling that says it does not violate what's in the charter to do so, would be saying that you understand it better than the supreme court. Do you really think you do? I know I don't think I do. As I said, differentiation is not discrimination.

If not calling a same sex union a marriage is discriminatory because the difference is based on sexual orientation, then not calling a woman a man is also discriminatory because the charter protects against discrimination based on sex as well.

The definition of discrimination is:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit"

The law specifically states that couples who are not married, but who fulfill specific criteria (which makes them equivalent to married) are to be given identical consideration and treatment to that given to married couples. So, legally, the law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman specifically makes discrimination against gay unions illegal.

Now, since that law wasn't struck down by the supreme court, when the government specifically asked them if it needed to be, it must not be discriminatory.

So, unless you can show me a difference in treatment or consideration (in the law), and not merely a difference in the word used to describe the couple, there is no discrimination here.

As far as the companies that do discriminate goes, well, by saying that the couples have to be married, they are breaking the law. It's just that simple. So, if homosexuals were married, and they still denied them benefits, they might be breaking their own rule, but they aren't breaking any laws that they weren't breaking when the homosexuals weren't married. So, there would be no new legal argument.

It's like if I said that I would only ever shoot people with my right hand, then I shoot someone with my left hand. Yep it makes me a liar, but I'd be in just as much trouble legally if I shot him with my right hand like I said I would.

I'm not sure what you meant by the 'legal term' paragraph. If the government stayed away from marriage altogether, and only granted civil unions, and the marriages were left to the churches, then 'marriage' would cease to be a legal issue. Right now, everyone needs to get a 'marriage license' from the government, and they don't legally give those licenses to anything other than man/woman couples. If they didn't give them to anyone (and didn't force the churches to require them) then it would cease to be under government control. Under the current laws, everyone who is 'married' also fits the definition of a legal couple as far as rights goes, and that would continue to be the case. Remember, before 1992, there WAS no legal definition of marriage... we were getting along just fine before then, so do we really need one? Before 1992, if the church said you were married, then you were, but you did need a license from the government to get married (bizarre, but that's how it was). But there was no definition in the laws anywhere. So, technically, it wasn't a legally defined term.

Dogma is dogma. I am not saying that you should accept the dogma of a church you don't belong to, no more than I would. For example, I'm not jewish, so I don't accept everything that is in the dogma of the jewish faith. I'm perfectly happy eating a pig. BUT I do not try to force anyone who is jewish to eat a pig. I don't question or debate their church's rules and dogma because I can choose not to follow the teachings of their church.

It is one thing to say that you don't want to be catholic, it is another thing to say that you want to be catholic, but the catholic church needs to redefine itself to suit you, and expect them to do it. If that's what you want, start your own church, and then you can make the rules yourself. It's been done before (that's how the anglican church started, a King wanted to make his own rules, so he did).

As far as the whole 'benefits' of changing the definition goes, I still don't see any benefit apart from making the people who want it changed happy that they got what they wanted. It would confer no additional legal benefits that don't already exist, it would not, as you said yourself, change anything about how the two people feel about each other.

So, if it comes down to making people happy, 4 times as many Canadians polled said that it would have a negative effect on their opinion of gays as said it would have a positive effect, over 80% of canadians polled said they don't want to change it, a similar number said that they felt it would have a negative effect on the institution of marriage.

Also, think about this. You said that you cannot see how the institution of marriage would be harmed by allowing gay marriages. Well, the strength, power and importance of an institution is based pretty much entirely on the opinion people have of that institution. If everyone thought that marriage was meaningless, and everyone opted for civil ceremonies and unions, then marriage would be meaningless, for example. So, the fact that around 80% of canadians think that removing the one man one woman criteria would lessen the meaning of marriage, means that it would lessen it.

To argue otherwise would be saying that changing the definition wouldn't lessen marriage in the eyes of those who say that changing the definition would lessen marriage, and that's a pretty contradictory argument, isn't it?

It's like a currency, if 80% of people think that the Canadian dollar is worth 0.70 US, then no matter what the other 20% think, unless they control the world money supply, the dollar is going to be worth about 0.70 US because that's what 80% of people will pay for it or sell it for.

I'm not saying that everything should always be majority rule, but, in the case where a clear majority does not want something to change, there needs to be a solid argument why it should be changed. The fact that those who want to change it do not understand why the majority does not want it changed, is not a reason to change it.

By the way, on the whole US argument. I found out something interesting today. A friend of mine is an immigration officer for the Canadian government, working at a border crossing. She asked a US border guard about the whole married/not married thing, and his answer was that if two men told him they were married, he would refuse them entry to the US based on the fact that they lied to him. She asked him "But what if they are married?" and he replied that they would be standing on US soil not Canadian soil, and in the US, two men can't be married, so they would be lying, and if you lie, you are refused entry.

So, just as a word of advice, however the canadian government goes on this one, be careful what you say to US immigration and border patrol officers...

March 25, 2005

I dug up some specifics on polls, so here they are:

The most recent one I could find asked people to choose between 3 choices:

1) Support legal redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples: ~ 20%

2) Support equal legal rights for gay couples but not redefinition of marriage: ~ 40%

3) Do not support equal rights for gay couples and do not support redefinition of marriage: ~ 40%

A poll from summer 2003 asked people to decide between 2 choices:

1) Support same sex marriages and legal rights for same sex couples: ~50%

2) Do not support same sex marriages and legal rights for same sex couples: ~ 50%

Both polls were done by reputable polling companies.

I also found some breakdowns of the numbers, and basically what they said was that the majority of support for redefining marriage came from those who are not married, with very little support coming from those who are. Also, the results for those under 25 are almost opposite the results for those over 25. Strongest support for redefining marriage to include same sex couples came from those under 20, and support went down continually as age went up.

March 26, 2005

Both polls were done by reputable polling companies.

If you were able to dig up specifics for the polls, then why did you not post the sources ... instead of simply saying that they were done by reputatble polling companies.

March 26, 2005

Ok, first off, as far as the charter and the current law. Maybe you disagree, but the supreme court, who are basically supposed to be the ultimate experts on the charter and the constitution said that the government can define marriage as man and women if it wants. I think that arguing with an existing ruling that says it does not violate what's in the charter to do so, would be saying that you understand it better than the supreme court. Do you really think you do? I know I don't think I do. As I said, differentiation is not discrimination.

Now, since that law wasn't struck down by the supreme court, when the government specifically asked them if it needed to be, it must not be discriminatory.

Canmic,

If you are going to bring the Supreme Court into this discussion or any other facts, then I expect you to be well informed before making such statements. Your above comments are one sided and the Supreme Court has not made such an explicit ruling as “it does not violate what’s in the charter.”

Among the questions Parliament asked the Court were whether the Canadian Parliament has the exclusive authority to define marriage, and whether legislation extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the equivalent of America's Constitution).

The court said yes to both questions. At the same time, the Court - declining a reference for the first time since 1929 - refused to opine whether the opposite-sex requirement of current law would also be consistent with the Canadian Charter. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court gave the government's proposed legislation the green light, ruling that the government has the jurisdiction and that equal marriage flows from the Charter. The Court confirmed that equal marriage was the law of the land in those provinces and territories where courts had ruled on the matter.

The Supreme Court was not asked to either uphold or strike down the legislation dealing with the definition of marriage. It is now up to Parliament to find the political will -- and the votes -- to enact same-sex marriage legislation. It is believed that, in 2005, it will do so.

Just because a law is not or hasn’t been struck down, does not guarantee that it is non-discriminatory as you claim. Take a look at all of the examples throughout history.

By the way, on the whole US argument. I found out something interesting today. A friend of mine is an immigration officer for the Canadian government, working at a border crossing. She asked a US border guard about the whole married/not married thing, and his answer was that if two men told him they were married, he would refuse them entry to the US based on the fact that they lied to him. She asked him "But what if they are married?" and he replied that they would be standing on US soil not Canadian soil, and in the US, two men can't be married, so they would be lying, and if you lie, you are refused entry.

I know this is what your friend said but I highly doubt that the real reason why US customs refused entry to such two men is because they "lied". They have a canadian marriage license to prove that they are infact married and just because they happen to be standing on US soil and the US happens to not recognize same sex marriage, does not make them liars. That is just absurb! They can be denied entrance into the country because the US doesn't recognize same sex marriages but that is a totally different reason then not letting someone in because they "lied". In the case where a gay couple has been denied entrance at the border they may still enter the country individually, unfortunately they have to declare that they are single and if I remember correctly, there was an article in the star maybe 1 year ago where this happened and the two men involved just decided to go somewhere else because they were not going to "lie" about their relationship status!

I'm not sure what you meant by the 'legal term' paragraph. If the government stayed away from marriage altogether, and only granted civil unions, and the marriages were left to the churches, then 'marriage' would cease to be a legal issue. Right now, everyone needs to get a 'marriage license' from the government, and they don't legally give those licenses to anything other than man/woman couples. If they didn't give them to anyone (and didn't force the churches to require them) then it would cease to be under government control.

I was going to address the rest of your post but then I read your ignorant comment regarding who can and cannot receive marriage licenses and I figured why bother continuing with someone who cannot stop perpetuating false uninformed facts. I find it next to impossible to see or believe how someone like yourself who claims to advocate equal rights for all can truly be uninformed about this matter by coincidence.

As things currently stand, governments in the majority of the provinces do not just legally give those licenses to man/woman couples.

March 26, 2005

Did you actually read the supreme court ruling in detail? If you did, you'd know that:

1) In their answer to question #1, they said that the federal government has the SOLE authority to define marriage, thus they basically voided any provincial laws that contradict the existing federal law saying that a marriage is one man and one woman. Sole authority is sole authority, it means no other level of government can over-ride the federal law, and right now, the federal law says one man one woman.

2) Yes they did say that changing the law to allow same sex marriages was consistant with the charter. That only makes sense, since they specifically said that the federal government has the sole authority to define it.

3) In their non-answer to question #4, they basically said that if they replied that 'yes' the current man/woman definition of marriage was against the charter, then that would contradict their answer to question #1 that the government has the authority to define marriage. They also said that they did not want to say 'no' it is not against the charter, because that would be contradicting the government's position that the current law should be changed, and would create 'legal turmoil'.

I am well informed, I have read the exact wording of the supreme court's rulings (and non-ruling). If you can somehow read into what they said that the current law is against the charter, please explain how.

I agree that the court did say that they thought the government was making a positive step forward and that maybe it was time to change things. They definately seemed to be pro-gay marriage. Given this stance, if they could possibly have said that the government must allow it, they would have I think.

Given their answer to question #1, how could you possibly say that they agreed that the provincial laws were valid? They basically said that the provinces had NO authority to pass those laws. Their 'law of the land' comment basically said that the federal government's stance (in wanting to change the law) was in keeping with the majority of the provincial government's opinions. It wasn't a comment on the legality of the provincial laws, which they had already said were invalid, by saying that the federal government had the sole authority.

When the supreme court said that, by the way, the Alberta government dropped a bill that they were debating that would have made marriage one man one woman in Alberta. They said that clearly the court had said that it was the responsibility of the federal government, and that the provinces had no authority to pass laws one way or the other.

As for the US example, I wasn't saying that the border guard was right or that he should have done what he did... I was saying be careful because they are playing games (and if you ask me, abusing their power). I doubt that even the US border patrol can say "You can't come in because you are gay" and get away with it (they do have to answer to their supervisors), but some of them are clearly willing to play games to exclude those they want to exclude. I was using it as an example of the absurd situation in the US, not agreeing with what the border guard did. I was not saying the guys had lied, as obviously they believed themselves to be married and so they weren't lying.

My comment about marriage licenses wasn't 'ignorant', it followed from the supreme court's answer to question #1 and from the current federal law that says that marriage is one man and one woman. Given that:

1) The federal government has the SOLE authority to determine the issue

and

2) The current federal law says one man and one woman

It logically (not ignorantly) follows that if a province is giving marriage licenses to anything other than man/woman couples, they are doing so illegally.

I did NOT say that they weren't doing it, I said that they weren't legally doing it. ie: they were doing it illegally.

I put that word in there for a reason.

So, if you can somehow come up with a reason why it is legal for them to break the federal law when the supreme court says that the federal law is the only one that counts, I'm listening...

March 27, 2005

After re-reading the entire supreme court 'reference' on the issue, I think I can make the whole issue much more clear, vis a vis the charter and discrimination and marriage.

Here's the points that should (I hope) clear it up:

1) The current federal law (not the pending one, the one that was passed just over 10 years ago) states that marriage is between one man and one woman only.

2) Some provincial courts have ruled that this law violates the charter, and those provinces have issued marriage licences to same sex couples.

3) The federal government is currently proposing legislation to allow same sex marriages, and the supreme court feels that such legislation will pass. Further, they have cleared the legislation as being consistent with the current constitution and charter, ie: they have said that the government has the power to enact such legislation and that it would be legal.

4) In declining to answer question #4, is the current law (saying one man and one woman only) in violation of the charter, the court said that it would not answer. The first reason that they gave was that if they answered, it would cause a great deal of confusion as the provincial court rulings saying that it was a violation would be overturned and that would 'unmarry' a large number of people, but then, once the federal government passed the legislation legalizing those marriages, the people would be married again, but the legal issues that would result would be a nightmare for everyone (except the high paid lawyers who would make a fortune off it - my comment not theirs).

I can totally see what they are getting at. Basically, if they ruled on #4, all the existing gay marriages would be void, but then, if the government passed the legislation, they would all have been voided for nothing.

And, what happens when you 'void' a marriage? Legally, what does it mean for those who have married and then divorced already? etc... total legal mess.

Now, the point is, IF they were going to agree with the provincial courts, none of this would happen.

So, saying that they are not going to answer because they don't want the legal mess to happen, makes it pretty clear what the answer would be, if they answered.

Now, if the federal government legislation does NOT pass, I can see them being asked again, pretty quickly, and not just as an 'idle question' as the first time was.

How long will it be before someone in a gay marriage wishes they had never gotten married? (It happens in man/woman marriages all the time, so why wouldn't it in gay marriages too).

Once that happens, and there is a large amount of money or some other major issue at stake, someone, eventually, will appeal the validity of the marriage, and then the court will have to answer.

Hopefully the government will have the whole mess sorted out before that happens, because despite the fact that I do not agree with changing the definition of marriage, I can see that the resulting mess wouldn't be fair or good for anyone.

Given that Paul Martin's government is trying very hard to self-destruct and send us back to the polls (the whole kyoto budget fiasco) I wonder if all of this will end up on the back burner and disappear with an election call.

March 28, 2005

Did you actually read the supreme court ruling in detail? If you did, you'd know that:

1) In their answer to question #1, they said that the federal government has the SOLE authority to define marriage, thus they basically voided any provincial laws that contradict the existing federal law saying that a marriage is one man and one woman. Sole authority is sole authority, it means no other level of government can over-ride the federal law, and right now, the federal law says one man one woman.

Given their answer to question #1, how could you possibly say that they agreed that the provincial laws were valid? They basically said that the provinces had NO authority to pass those laws. Their 'law of the land' comment basically said that the federal government's stance (in wanting to change the law) was in keeping with the majority of the provincial government's opinions. It wasn't a comment on the legality of the provincial laws, which they had already said were invalid, by saying that the federal government had the sole authority.

My comment about marriage licenses wasn't 'ignorant', it followed from the supreme

court's answer to question #1 and from the current federal law that says that marriage is one man and one woman. Given that:

1) The federal government has the SOLE authority to determine the issue

and

2) The current federal law says one man and one woman

It logically (not ignorantly) follows that if a province is giving marriage licenses to anything other than man/woman couples, they are doing so illegally.

I did NOT say that they weren't doing it, I said that they weren't legally doing it. ie: they were doing it illegally.

I put that word in there for a reason.

So, if you can somehow come up with a reason why it is legal for them to break the federal law when the supreme court says that the federal law is the only one that counts, I'm listening...

I am not entirely convinced that you actually read the whole ruling in detail. As indicated in the official reference, “As a result of decisions by lower courts, the common law definition of marriage in five provinces and one territory no longer imports an opposite-sex requirement ….The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own. Second, the parties in the previous litigation, and other same-sex couples, have relied upon the finality of the decisions and have acquired rights which are entitled to protection …. The lower courts' decisions in the matters giving rise to this reference are binding in their respective provinces." These were some of the comments the Supreme Court issued. . Now take a look at your own comments .. specifically .. “They basically said that the provinces had NO authority to pass those laws.” and “It wasn't a comment on the legality of the provincial laws, which they had already said were invalid, by saying that the federal government had the sole authority.” Clearly, you are not aware that the Federal law has been struck down by the provincial supreme courts in 8 provinces and 1 territory regarding the definition of marriage as of date. Marriage licenses are handed out by provincial governments. These provinces are handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples legally.

2) Yes they did say that changing the law to allow same sex marriages was consistant with the charter. That only makes sense, since they specifically said that the federal government has the sole authority to define it.

On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government’s proposed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage is constitutional (answer to question #2). The Supreme Court also said that it is within the legal power of the federal government to define marriage …. then it logically follows that current federal law which says that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman violates (ie. not consistent with) the charter and therefore must be redefined. You can’t have it both ways in this case. In issuing these comments, the Court has indicated that access to civil marriage is a matter of fundamental equality. You can beat around the bush with possible interpretations but it really is just that simple.

3) In their non-answer to question #4, they basically said that if they replied that 'yes' the current man/woman definition of marriage was against the charter, then that would contradict their answer to question #1 that the government has the authority to define marriage. They also said that they did not want to say 'no' it is not against the charter, because that would be contradicting the government's position that the current law should be changed, and would create 'legal turmoil'.

Again, this is not quite what the Supreme Court said. As taken directly from the official ruling, “the first consideration on the issue of whether this Court should answer the fourth question is the government's stated position that it will proceed by way of legislative enactment, regardless of what answer we give to this question. In oral argument, counsel reiterated the government's unequivocal intention to introduce legislation in relation to same-sex marriage, regardless of the answer to Question 4. The government has clearly accepted the rulings of lower courts on this question and has adopted their position as its own. The common law definition of marriage in five provinces and one territory no longer imports an opposite-sex requirement. In addition, s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, S.C. 2001, c. 4, no longer imports an opposite-sex requirement. Given the government's stated commitment to this course of action, an opinion on the constitutionality of an opposite-sex requirement for marriage serves no legal purpose … On the other hand, answering this question may have serious deleterious effects, which brings us to our next point. They have not elaborated “that if they replied that 'yes' the current man/woman definition of marriage was against the charter, then that would contradict their answer to question #1 that the government has the authority to define marriage.” This is your own interpretation .. not one based on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

"The second consideration is that the parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process. In the circumstances, their vested rights outweigh any benefit accruing from an answer to Question 4.

The final consideration is that answering this question has the potential to undermine the government's stated goal of achieving uniformity in respect of civil marriage across Canada. There is no question that uniformity of the law is essential. This is the very reason that Parliament was accorded legislative competence in respect of marriage under s.91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, as discussed, the government has already chosen to address the question of uniformity by means of the Proposed Act, which we have found to be within Parliament's legislative competence and consistent with the Charter. Answering the fourth question will not assist further. Given that uniformity is to be addressed legislatively, this rationale for answering Question 4 fails to compel.

As a result of these developments, same-sex marriages have generally come to be viewed as legal and have been regularly taking place in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Since this reference was initiated, the opposite-sex requirement for marriage has also been struck down in the Yukon, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan: Dunbar v. Yukon, [2004] Y.J. No. 61 (QL), 2004 YKSC 54; Vogel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] M.J. No. 418 (QL) (Q.B.); Boutilier v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), [2004] N.S.J. No. 357 (QL) (S.C.); and N.W. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] S.J. No. 669 (QL), 2004 SKQB 434. In each of those instances, the Attorney General of Canada conceded that the common law definition of marriage was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter and was not justifiable under s. 1, and publicly adopted the position that the opposite-sex requirement for marriage was unconstitutional.”

It’s fairly obvious from the Supreme Court’s ruling which side they favor. They sure don’t bash or basically say that the provinces had NO authority to pass those laws in this reference as you claim.

I am well informed, I have read the exact wording of the supreme court's rulings (and non-ruling). If you can somehow read into what they said that the current law is against the charter, please explain how.

I agree that the court did say that they thought the government was making a positive step forward and that maybe it was time to change things. They definately seemed to be pro-gay marriage. Given this stance, if they could possibly have said that the government must allow it, they would have I think.

They have not explicitly commented on whether or not the current law is against the charter. However, as you said so yourself, they seemed to think the government was making a positive step forward and that maybe it was time to change things. They definately seemed to be pro-gay marriage. It would not have made sense for them to comment on whether or not the government must allow it, since they clearly explained earlier that given the government's stated commitment to this course of action, an opinion on the constitutionality of an opposite-sex requirement for marriage serves no legal purpose. As of date, 8 provinces and 1 territory have embraced same sex marriages. Doesn’t that speak for itself that the current federal law IS against the charter?

March 28, 2005

Just to clarify ...

As of date, 8 provinces and 1 territory have embraced same sex marriages by confirming that it is illegal to deny couples access to marriage.

Also, as of October, 13, 2004 ... New York State's retirement system has been treating a Canadian gay marriage the same as any other US marriage for the purposes of retirement benefits and obligations. The decision was made by New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Earlier this year Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the state should recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere (ie. in Canada).

March 28, 2005

If you can somehow read into what they said that the current law is against the charter, please explain how.

Maybe you should ask the 28 judges up to date that have confirmed same-sex marriage as a right about how the current law is against the charter ??

I am personally quite happy with the Supreme Court's reference and essentially their "the way is clear" stance for Parliament to finally fulfill its responsibility. Help is on the way for the remaining citizens still living in provinces under government discrimination!

March 28, 2005

The biggest indication that the answer to question #4 would be that the current law does NOT violate the charter is in the statement:

"The second consideration is that the parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process. In the circumstances, their vested rights outweigh any benefit accruing from an answer to Question 4. "

IF the answer that the supreme court could give was consistant with the lower court rulings, then this statement wouldn't make any sense. The only reason for them to make this statement at all, is that they felt that in answering question #4, they would alter the finality of the previous judgements. If they would have agreed with the previous judgements, then there would be no 'outweighing' of the benefits, as answering question #4 would re-affirm the granting of those benefits and not detract from it.

The issue I am talking about, remember, is whether or not the current legal definition is in violation of the charter, and therefore is discriminatory.

I am aware that the federal law has been struck down in provincial courts, but, by re-affirming that the federal government does have the authority to pass such a law, that does take away from the provincial court rulings that the law is not valid.

I have no idea what your point was in the following paragraph, please explain how it 'logically follows' ?

On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government’s proposed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage is constitutional (answer to question #2). The Supreme Court also said that it is within the legal power of the federal government to define marriage …. then it logically follows that current federal law which says that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman violates (ie. not consistent with) the charter and therefore must be redefined. You can’t have it both ways in this case. In issuing these comments, the Court has indicated that access to civil marriage is a matter of fundamental equality. You can beat around the bush with possible interpretations but it really is just that simple.

Yes the government has the power to define marriage and yes they can legally define it so as to include same sex marriage. How does that logically lead to the fact that they cannot define it as not including same sex marriage?

Maybe you aren't sure about why they asked question #1 and #2? It dates back to the original constitution which was derived from the BNA act. In the BNA act, marriage is defined as being between two people of opposite sexes. There was some legal debate as to whether or not the federal government had the power to change that without a constitutional amendment. The court ruled that yes, they can change it, and that yes, if they want to, they can include same sex marriages. There was also the issue of religion, and if changing marriage violated the charter, and they ruled that it did not as long as priests etc were protected from being forced to perform such ceremonies.

In the answer to question #1, the court was confirming the constitutional division of powers regarding marriages. That division says that the federal government gets to say who can get married and the provincial government gets to say how they can get married and to issue the licenses. Under that situation, the provincial governments do NOT have the power to decide who to give licenses to. Quite bizarre, but that's what the constitution says and the supreme court has reaffirmed it.

The ONLY reference to the legality or illegality of the current law (one man one woman) was in question #4. Basically the way I understand their answer, they are saying that it would not be in anyone's best interest to rule on #4, because that would take away rights that have been granted by virtue of provincial court rulings, when such rights would be re-granted given the federal government's intention to change the law regardless of the answer to question #4. Ie: why cause harm to people by un-marrying them when the law is about to be changed anyway and un-marrying them would serve no purpose and have no benefit.

I do agree with that statement, as I have said before. There would be no point in flip-flopping things based on a law which the federal government intends to change anyway. To do so would be to inflict harm for no real purpose or benefit.

Now, if the government changes its stance, and leaves the law as it is currently, that would be a different story... There WOULD be a point to a ruling on question #4, and there would not be a 'flip-flop' harm inflicted for no purpose.

Now, given that they said that, is it not clear that their answer to question #4, had they given it, would be contradictory to the provincial court rulings?

I'm really wondering why the government asked question #4 and then followed by saying that they would change the law regardless. I can totally see the supreme court's point that to rule on question #4, overturning the lower court rulings, and then have the government go ahead and change the law anyway, would just be downright mean. If the government had agreed that if both the current and revised versions of the law were constitutional, they would have a referendum to decide, or something of that nature, and if not, they would go with the one that was constitutional, then I could see a point to asking. But, to ask the question when you have no intention of going that route anyway is pointless... maybe?

The only reason I can think of for asking question #4 would be that the government was EXPECTING to be told that the current definition was against the charter, and therefore it HAD to be changed, at that point they would be getting serious support in their efforts to change the law, and it would take the wind out of the sails of those who think the issue should go to referendum or to a free vote in the commons. But, by not answering #4, and in their explanation for not answering, the supreme court was clearly saying that the only answer it could give would be contradictory to what the government wants, and what they (the supreme court) feels is the 'right' (if not legally necessary) thing to do, which is to change the law.

If you can explain why they would have declined to answer, and given the reasons that they gave, in a way that is consistant with them saying that the current law is against the charter, please do.

One definite reason they would have for giving such a ruling, if they could, would be the fate of those in the provinces whose provincial courts have NOT over-ruled the federal law. If they had come out with an answer to question #4 that said that the law was in violation of the charter, many people in those provinces would clearly benefit, would they not? So, why would the court allow them to continue to be discriminated against, and have their rights violated, especially given the court's position that they should have the right to marry?

As far as the New York case, yes, this is correct, and it totally agrees with what I said earlier about the USA. If the US recognizes Canadian marriages, then they must recognize ALL Canadian marriages. Unfortunately, the current government in the US has said that they would enact legislation to not recognize marriages from countries that allow same sex marriage. The trick is that in the US the rules about state and federal powers are different from Canada. Individual states can control who can and cannot get married in their state, which is why the federal government would require a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (and they are trying to put one through right now). BUT, international treaties and which countries marriages are recognized within the US falls under the mandate of the federal government, and state governments must follow the feseral laws. Currently those laws say that they must recognize Canadian marriages (all of them).

It is also interesting to note that the prime minister is being very careful with his senate appointments, and has avoided filling a number of empty seats in the senate. I wonder if we are going to once again find ourselves in the position where the senate overturns a law passed by the federal government (I believe the last time this happened involved abortion?). Maybe that was another reason the government asked question #4.

March 28, 2005

The biggest indication that the answer to question #4 would be that the current law does NOT violate the charter is in the statement:

"The second consideration is that the parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process. In the circumstances, their vested rights outweigh any benefit accruing from an answer to Question 4. "

IF the answer that the supreme court could give was consistent with the lower court rulings, then this statement wouldn't make any sense. The only reason for them to make this statement at all, is that they felt that in answering question #4, they would alter the finality of the previous judgements. If they would have agreed with the previous judgements, then there would be no 'outweighing' of the benefits, as answering question #4 would re-affirm the granting of those benefits and not detract from it.

They clearly indicated that the basis for their selected approach to answering question #4 was due to the fact that the answer to Question 4 may be positive or negative and that the preliminary analysis of the discretion not to answer a reference question cannot be predicated on a presumed outcome. The court also clearly said that answering this question has the potential to undermine the government’s stated goal of achieving uniformity in respect of civil marriage across Canada. They didn’t provide an answer because they knew that either way, a “yes or no” answer would make them seem hypocritical because it would undermine their stated goal especially when they clearly said that in oral argument, counsel reiterated the government’s unequivocal intention to introduce legislation in relation to same-sex marriage, regardless of the answer to Question 4. It seems the government has clearly accepted the rulings of lower courts on this question and has adopted their position as its own.

So to sum up:

In declining to answer question number four, the court made reference to the fact that five provinces and one territory are celebrating same-sex marriages and thousands of couples have already married because the government decided not to appeal (Now here is a no brainer .. Why did the governments decide not to appeal further? COULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY ALL KNEW THAT THE CURRENT LAW VIOLATES THE CHARTER?). While not explicitly confirmed by the Supreme Court, it was a question already answered and accepted by the government.

The issue I am talking about, remember, is whether or not the current legal definition is in violation of the charter, and therefore is discriminatory.

I am aware that the federal law has been struck down in provincial courts, but, by re-affirming that the federal government does have the authority to pass such a law, that does take away from the provincial court rulings that the law is not valid.

The Supreme Court said that it is within the federal government’s legal authority to define marriage and that same sex marriage is constitutional. You put those statements together and you get bill-c38. Reaffirming that it is within the federal government’s legal authority to define marriage does not take away from the provincial court rulings because the federal government can redefine marriage either way and therefore the court’s opinion is not meant to take away from the legal validity of the provincial rulings like you claim. On the other hand, all of the Supreme Court Provincial rulings that have confirmed (1) the existing common law definition of marriage violates the Couples’ equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under s. 15(1) of the Charter; and (2) the violation of the Couples’ equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter cannot be justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter. provide further evidence that the current legal definition is a violation of the charter and must be redefined.

I have no idea what your point was in the following paragraph, please explain how it 'logically follows' ?

On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government’s proposed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage is constitutional (answer to question #2). The Supreme Court also said that it is within the legal power of the federal government to define marriage …. then it logically follows that current federal law which says that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman violates (ie. not consistent with) the charter and therefore must be redefined. You can’t have it both ways in this case. In issuing these comments, the Court has indicated that access to civil marriage is a matter of fundamental equality. You can beat around the bush with possible interpretations but it really is just that simple.

Yes the government has the power to define marriage and yes they can legally define it so as to include same sex marriage. How does that logically lead to the fact that they cannot define it as not including same sex marriage?

The answer to question 1: Yes

The answer to question 2: Yes

In answering “yes’ to question 2, the Court sided that same-sex marriage is constitutional. The current federal law excludes same-sex marriages.

The federal government has the legal authority to define marriage.

Given that the Supreme Court has sided that same-sex marriage is constitutional and all of the rulings in the provincial courts by 28 judges as of date that excluding same sex marriage is unconstitutional ……. If same sex marriage has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court .. then how can the current federal law which excludes same-sex marriages also be constitutional (especially since so many judges have said otherwise… You seem to keep arguing that it is constitutional? Are you saying that you know better than these judges?). This is what I meant by you can’t have it both ways in this case. Do you really think the federal government is going leave the current law the way it is? To exclude same-sex marriages at this point would naïve wishful thinking especially since 28 judges have already ruled that the current definition is unconstitutional and it’s already been said that the notwithstanding clause will not be used.

As far as the New York case, yes, this is correct, and it totally agrees with what I said earlier about the USA. If the US recognizes Canadian marriages, then they must recognize ALL Canadian marriages. Unfortunately, the current government in the US has said that they would enact legislation to not recognize marriages from countries that allow same sex marriage. The trick is that in the US the rules about state and federal powers are different from Canada. Individual states can control who can and cannot get married in their state, which is why the federal government would require a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (and they are trying to put one through right now). BUT, international treaties and which countries marriages are recognized within the US falls under the mandate of the federal government, and state governments must follow the feseral laws. Currently those laws say that they must recognize Canadian marriages (all of them).

How does the NY State case totally agree with what you said earlier? If anything .. it contradicts what you've said regarding the future of Canadian marriages being "accepted" in the US. You explicitly made a hypothetical point saying that if Canada legalizes same sex marriage that this would hurt Canadians because other countries such as the US might void all marriages. What I've shown you by quoting the NY example is that not only is what you are saying not true .. the reverse is happening. NY state now recognizes Canadian same-sex marriages as equivalent for the for the purposes of retirement benefits and obligations. Also, I noticed you went from saying a few days ago that perhaps the USA might enact legislation to not recognize marriages from countries that allow same sex marriages to saying that the USA HAS SAID THEY WOULD. When did this change occur? Or this an attempt on your behalf to try and confuse people from the “truth of what will happen” vs. “what may happen”?

March 28, 2005

Time for me to do some more reading to check into some of the points raised, but here are two things that I will clarify.

1) The fact that legalizing same-sex marriage is constitutionally allowable does NOT in any way mean that not legalizing it isn't constitutionally allowable.

2) For the USA stuff, basically how the NY case agrees with what I said earlier is that, as I said, the US will be (is?) in a position where they have to recognize all or none when it comes to Canadian marriages. They cannot exclude gay marriages but include hetero marriages from Canada. The reason my statement changed was because I had done more reading, and found out more info. I was reading up on the proposed constitutional amendment that is being drafted in the US to ban gay marriage, and the reason why they aren't just passing a law etc... Basically to over-ride state control over marriages within their own country, they need to amend their constitution. But, since everything dealing with foreign policy and treaties etc is under federal jurisdiction, they could force the states to not recognize Canadian marriages with a law, and several US lawmakers have said that they would do so for any country which allows gay marriages as a means of preventing gays in the US from just leaving the country and getting married and then going back and being married (should they put through the amendment to ban gay marriage within the USA).

I'm not sure if the amendment will pass or not, as it requires more than a simple majority (67% I think?) which the republicans don't have. Same reason the democrats could never get the ERA passed. But they only need 50% plus one for a law, and they do have that. Also, I have no doubt that the president would sign such a law so it won't be vetoed if they do pass it.

As far as why the provinces did not appeal further, my guess would be that they didn't because the issue was already before the supreme court.

When the federal government has already asked the court to rule on whether or not the current law is unconstitutional (but they haven't ruled yet, which was the case), I doubt the court would even accept the question a second time, as it is already before the court. Actually, isn't that what happened in one case? I'm not 100% sure on the details, have to go look it up, but I do remember that the court did tell someone that they wouldn't accept a case dealing with the issue because it was 'already before the court'. Now that we have the ruling (and non-ruling), it would also be pointless to persue an appeal as the federal government has said they are going to change the law anyway. Again, as I said earlier, to un-marry someone at this point would just be mean for no good reason, and no one in politics wants that bad press.

Of course, if the current government falls (as is seeming more likely every day) or if the legislation to change the law does not pass or is not ratified by the senate, then all bets are off as to what happens next. The supreme court may find itself in a very awkward position of having to deal with question #4 without the safety net of pending legislation to change the existing law.

April 1, 2005

I would just like to point out that this thread, on ANY OTHER message board (that I've been on at least), would have degenerated into a "flame war" by now. In fact, it would have happened right after the first post in 99% of the cases (99% confidence interval - 98%-100% :lol )

I am impressed at how remarkably civil everyone is given this highly contentious issue.

Anyways, this issue basically boils down to the connotations of a word, I think. I'm glad that couples both gay and straight want to use a word that has such positive connotations (in my mind, at least).

For those straight couples who are against gay-marriage, I don't think it would take long to get over it. There might be some disappointment, bitterness, et cetera, but I doubt it would last too long. Though, negative sentiments could fester in smaller, closed communities and other closed religious communities (think "Little India", aka West Surrey/Delta).

Sorry to restart what I'm sure some have hoped would be a dead topic...but... I felt like it.

April 19, 2005

From the looks of things, not only the topic is gonna be dead...

If we get an election call before the vote, the bill dies.

If we get a conservative government, it all bounces back to the supreme court (assuming they are willing to answer question #4 when they are backed into a corner on it)

With the way things are going this week (liberals cancelling opposition day to control the agenda) we'll likely have an election in June, and a conservative government after that.

It'll be interesting to see if Martin trades his dignity and credibility for a few more days of being prime minister, if he does it will just wind up making sure we get a conservative government..

April 19, 2005

If we get an election call before the vote, the bill dies.

At this point, unless the notwithstanding is used bill C-38 will pass even with a conservative government. The House of Commons has recently voted 164 to 132 defeating (by a comfortable margin) Stephen Harper's proposal to exclude lesbian and gay people from protection of Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, Constitutional law experts question Stephen Harper about tying his motion to a call for Parliament to take away civil marriage from same-sex couples. According to many Canadian constitutional law professors such as Martha Jackman, “Stephen Harper’s motion is based on the disingenuous assertion that Parliament can take away civil marriage from same-sex couples without using the notwithstanding clause. The truth is, there is only one way for Mr. Harper to accomplish his selective rights goal: invoke the notwithstanding clause.”

A letter to Stephen Harper signed by over 130 law professors from across Canada states that the consensus of constitutional law experts is that the Charter requires same-sex couples to be permitted access to civil marriage. It calls on Mr. Harper to be honest about the need to invoke the notwithstanding clause to take away that Charter right. (see www.law.utoronto.ca/samesexletter.html for full letter and signatories)

With the way things are going this week (liberals cancelling opposition day to control the agenda) we'll likely have an election in June, and a conservative government after that.

We could possibly or possibly not have an election in June b/c The federal New Democrats have said that they would be willing to support Prime Minister Paul Martin's bid to stave off a spring election if he agreed to limit corporate tax cuts and address Ontario's so-called fiscal gap.

Karen Busby, professor of law at the University of Manitoba, pointed out that Stephen Harper admitted his civil union plan won’t work in his speech to Parliament on Feb. 16, 2005 regarding Bill C-38.

“Mr. Harper is to be congratulated for finally admitting his separate but equal plan won’t work,” said Karen Busby. “He admitted that civil unions are provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government is constitutionally unable to enact a comprehensive civil union scheme for gays and lesbians.”

“Mr. Harper admitted his plan to create a ‘separate but equal’ civil union for gays and lesbians is really a half-baked scheme that won’t even deliver equal rights and responsibilities, let alone true substantive equality and an end to second-class status.”

“Mr. Harper’s scheme would leave most rights and responsibilities up to the provinces, leaving gays and lesbians with the same legal patchwork they face today.”

Excerpt from Mr. Harper’s speech:

“Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time we would propose that will other forms of union however structured by appropriate legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions, whatever, should be entitled to same rights, privileges, and obligations of marriage. Many of these types of union are already subject to provincial jurisdiction under their responsibility for civil law. But there are issues affecting rights and benefits within the federal domain, and our party would ensure that for all federal purposes, those Canadians living in other forms of union are recognized as having equal rights and benefits under federal law as well.”

Don’t get me started on Harper ………. The last thing he wants is to allow equal rights for gays, lesbians and other groups of people.

-----------

http://www.futuredoc.ca/forums

April 20, 2005

Uhh.. If we have an election call before they vote on C-38, it is dead, no more, gone, kaput.. and will never 'pass' even if the liberals win the resulting election.

They may bring in a bill C-39 which is exactly the same thing as the current C-38, but any bill that is 'pending' when an election is called is off the table and has to start all over again. I'm not 100% sure if they have to use a different number or not, but I think they do. That's the reason why we technically don't have any marijuana legislation at the moment, the bill died when the election was called and it hasn't been re-introduced yet (as far as I have heard?), meanwhile, the supreme court's deadline has lapsed and the old law is kaput.

That aside, I'm not sure how you would think that the bill would pass with a conservative government? How would it even get voted on, unless it is a minority government? The government controls the agenda and with a majority, they don't have to call votes they don't want to call. Since they can basically pass any law they want (and that law can be struck down in the courts if it isn't ok) I think it is much more likely that they would pass a law reaffirming the old one and then throw the mess back to the courts, that way they could say that they stuck to what they believed was right, and it wasn't their fault if it turns out differently from how they wanted.

So, if you are saying that Harper's proposed 'revised' version that he wants to put in will be overturned in the courts, unless he uses the notwithstanding clause, well, that's a whole different story, maybe it will.

As I said, we'll see an answer from the supreme court on question #4, one way or the other, if that happens.

If you do the math, you can clearly see that even if the NDP backs the liberals, they don't have the numbers to defeat a joint effort by the bloq and the conservatives. They would be about 3 votes short if I recall the exact numbers.

Given that the current mess with Gomery has the Bloq chomping at the bit for an election, if Harper decides he wants one, he'll get one. It's more a question of when.

My guess (and that of many analysts) is that Harper will want a summer election. The reason is that in the summer people are generally more apathetic and the 'middle of the road' type people are much less likely to vote. That leaves basically the hard left, the hard right and people who are currently really really ticked off at the liberals. The Bloq would take Quebec, the conservatives would take the west, and it would all come down to Ontario, which is currently pretty strongly anti-liberal in the polls.

As I said, Martin can try to hold off an election, by playing certain tricks with loopholes in the rules, but eventually he'll be out of tricks and he might wind up hurting his own election chances if people see him as some sort of loophole manipulator (ie: cheater).

What Harper is saying, basically, is that the federal government does not say what rights people do or do not get when they are married or unioned or whatever you want to call the relationship. This is true, and it will ALWAYS be that way, C-38 or no C-38.

Civil law is provincial, not federal, and all rights under civil law will always be provincial based and will never be federal based.

That said, there are certain things that are under federal control that have to do with rights of couples, canada pension for example and UIC benefits for another example.

Remember, C-38 has never been about civil rights or responsibilities, it has always been about the definition of a word. In our bizarre constitutional framework, the federal government can decide WHO can get married, but the provincial governments decide what it means to be married legally, and how people get married. So, while C-38 does say which couples the provincial 'rules for married people' apply to, it does not say anything about what those rules are.

And, while some argue that the 'right to get married' is a human right, it isn't a civil right, for anyone (gay or straight). If a province wanted to decide that no one could get married in that province anymore, they could. So long as they applied it to everyone, there would be no legal basis to fight it.

So, in typical politician-speak, Harper actually just re-stated what the federal/provincial boundries are, and didn't actually 'say' anything that meant much of anything. He could have said "Red means stop and green means go, and my party will be sure to see that this continues" and it would have meant about as much.

Remember that the federal government has no real ability to define civil law, so no matter WHAT they put in a law, it wouldn't mean a thing in a civil court if a provincial law said something different.

So, as Harper said, whether gay couples get the same civil rights as straight ones is a provincial matter, and the federal government can only act on those issues (like CPP) over which it has direct control. He can't legislate equal civil rights for gays any more than the liberals or any federal government can.

Most people figure that he never intended for that motion to pass, and it was just a political move designed to keep the religious right on his side in a spring/summer election.

Remember that Harper is not Stockwell Day, he's more of a libertarian than a hard core conservative. His economic ideas are waaaaaaay over on the right, but he isn't a bible thumper like Stockwell was. He probably honestly doesn't care what people do in their bedrooms, so long as it isn't subsidized by tax dollars. The problem is, he has to hold together a party with lots of people who are far less libertarian than he is.. He has no interest in taking away anyone's rights, so long as it doesn't cost the government/taxpayers anything. There are very few such issues, where rights don't have a public price tag attached, but this is probably one of them.

The trick with any right wing government is that they don't want to give one group any rights which will end up costing another group money. They like to follow the 'you earned the money, you get to spend it on yourself' idea.

April 20, 2005

If you honestly believe that Harper has no interest in taking away anyone's rights, so long as it doesn't cost the government/taxpayers anything ... then you are not getting enough oxygen to your brain .....

You can continue to say what you want but the nice weather is here now, and I'd much rather be outside with my fiance and getting ready for school which is only a few of months away rather than .. being inside and reading your carefully disguised posts.

polygamy

Recommended Posts

Guest fierysweet

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Ollie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Yevgenydorn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Arcados

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest uglyorange

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Malikar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest canmic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest VwDubber

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Who's Online 18 Members, 0 Anonymous, 106 Guests (See full list)

Browse