Canada's Supreme Court OK's same-sex marriage

[AMothfromWpg]

cbc.ca

Supreme Court OK's same-sex marriage
Last Updated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:13:40 EST
OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.



The Supreme Court decision


Martha McCarthy
In a non-binding opinion released Thursday morning, the court reaffirmed religious freedoms under the Charter, saying religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.
It also declined to answer whether same-sex marriage was required by the constitution.

The Paul Martin government had asked the court to consider whether excluding gays and lesbians from legal marriage violated equality rights under the Charter.

But the court said that by failing to appeal a number of lower court rulings that said excluding gays from marriage was discriminatory, the federal government had already accepted that position.

"The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own," the court wrote.

The court rejected the argument that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in history, saying times have changed.

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today," wrote the court.

"I feel it is a clear green light in favour of equal marriage," said Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for same-sex couples.

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage reacted swiftly, as Gwen Landolt with Real Women and Catholic Civil Rights League member Richard Bastien called for a referendum on the issue. Landolt says the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in the constitution.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Monday he would take the bill to Parliament as early as this month.

Martin has asked MPs to support the bill, but has also told them it will be a free vote.

The Liberals hold a thin minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, but should have the support of most or all of the 19 New Democrat MPs and 54 Bloc Québécois MPs.

NDP Leader Jack Layton has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill, while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose party is split on the issue, says it will be a free vote.

If passed, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in making gay marriage legal nationwide.

Chrétien sent bill to court

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien sent the issue to the Supreme Court following a June 2003 ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal allowing same-sex unions.

Ottawa has proposed changing the definition of marriage to the "lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" rather than the "lawful union of one man and one woman."

Before taking it to Parliament, Chrétien referred the proposed bill to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to offer a non-binding opinion on three questions, including whether the government could redefine marriage, whether it supported the Charter of Rights and whether church groups had to perform the ceremonies.

When he became prime minister one year ago, Paul Martin added a fourth question: whether limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

Along with Ontario, court rulings have now made same-sex marriage legal in British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon.
Your thoughts on this?
My thoughts that in a free vote in Parliament - it will be close but will pass as British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon have already approved. And the government did not appeal the rulings in the Yukon, Manitoba and I believe SK.
I find it interesting that the Courts did not choose to utilize judicial advocacy where in this situation it would of been ideal to. I find it really as a change to past roles of the court and in passing it to parliament to sort out, it takes the pressure off of the courts in defining social policies and laws (something that has brought criticism to them in the past).

[Chief Hoult]

I read it on CNN, and they have a little poll thing, and it asked whether or not people think it's right that Canada is allowing this. 75% said no, they don't think it's right. Just a cool little tid-bit.

Personally, I think it's great.

Times have changes. Women weren't "Persons" not too long ago, and times changes, and so we changed the definition. The 'slippery slope' argument that some make doesn't really hold with me, as many people thought the same thing would happen when we made women equal. I mean, my goodness, look at what's happened since we've let women into the workplace! ;)

CH

[AMothfromWpg]

I read it on CNN, and they have a little poll thing, and it asked whether or not people think it's right that Canada is allowing this. 75% said no, they don't think it's right. Just a cool little tid-bit.

CNN is also very right wing. Coincedence?

[Juice]

I'm just gonna sit back and wait and see what happens. I'm not necessarily in favour of it, but I'm not against it either. Let's just say I'm indifferent. On the fence leaning towards the approval side. ;)

[Chief Hoult]

CNN is also very right wing. Coincedence?

Oh, I know. I just found it interesting :)

[Slippery Pete]

It would be a mistake to compare this decision to that of the "persons" case. The decision of changing marriage to include a union between any two people now rests with Commons. All groups concerned already agreed that gays and lesbians are people with equal rights guaranteed by the Charter. The Court refused to comment on whether purely heterosexual marriage is Constitutional.

The decision is not a charter decision but one of Federal Powers. It was about whether the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage and thus block provinces from applying the not-withstanding clause. This change of definition is what has opposition groups so upset. They hold the view that as people, gays and lesbians are free to have unions. They ask that this union not be called marriage, but that they would be entitled to all the rights associated with marriage (taxes, health benefits, etc.) and that religious institutions not be forced to perform said union (which the groups did recieve).

[FOXX]

But still how many provinces will invoke section 33 of the Charter, the "notwithstanding clause"

[DA Wright]

But still how many provinces will invoke section 33 of the Charter, the "notwithstanding clause"

Klein in Alberta is the only one to suggest it, but that won't work if the Federal Government has exclsive power to define marriage.

[AMothfromWpg]

Actually what is interesting to note - and hasn't been raised surprisingly - is that the marriage institution existed before christianity, and some of these other religions as well. What has also not been noted, is that marriage has been since the male domination of societies, a male tool for supremacy over women.
Why has this institution and concept of marriage not been discussed in all the discussions about "ruining the traditional sense of marriage"?
Why do we promote a system of supremacy over equality in a relationship?

And the discussion about marriages being called marriages - they still are unions sanctioned by the state, often performed by religious organizations. IF I wanted to, I could go to a justice of the peace and be married as well. and it would represent the same benefits as if I were to go to a religious institution. Marriage does not have to have religious connotations attached to it.

[Chief Hoult]

It would be a mistake to compare this decision to that of the "persons" case. The decision of changing marriage to include a union between any two people now rests with Commons. All groups concerned already agreed that gays and lesbians are people with equal rights guaranteed by the Charter. The Court refused to comment on whether purely heterosexual marriage is Constitutional.

The decision is not a charter decision but one of Federal Powers. It was about whether the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage and thus block provinces from applying the not-withstanding clause. This change of definition is what has opposition groups so upset. They hold the view that as people, gays and lesbians are free to have unions. They ask that this union not be called marriage, but that they would be entitled to all the rights associated with marriage (taxes, health benefits, etc.) and that religious institutions not be forced to perform said union.

The Courts opinion from what I read, stated that they don't believe religious institutions should have to perform the ceremony; I agree with that.

The Persons case was solved through the courts, but resulted in what will (hopefully) be the same end -- changing a definition to suit the times.

CH

[DA Wright]

The court indicated religious leaders will not have to perform sam-sex marriages if they choose not to, but what next? Should two Catholic gays get married in a civil ceremony, then want to atttend their parish's marriage retreat, can the church deny it, based on the fact that the church does not recognise that they are married?

[Chief Hoult]

Why not? Stranger things have happened....equal opportunity in the work force doesn't mean a woman can be the pope (or a priest), etc.

CH

[M. Ward]

'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation'

Might have been said about something else, can't quite remember, but I feel it sort of fitting. Yes, marriage dosen't take place in the bedroom in the norm, but you get the general idea.

Who are we to tell two men or women they can't marry?

[AMothfromWpg]

Why not? Stranger things have happened....equal opportunity in the work force doesn't mean a woman can be the pope (or a priest), etc.

CH But you can have women priests though - it depends on the denomination.

[Chief Hoult]

Not Catholic ;)

CH

[JGallagher]

Did they not also say that the church does not have to preform the union. I will not call it a marrage. I can almost for certain say that no priest here will preform it in the catholic church nor shall I attend one.

[Lt(N) Bryan McIntyre]

Why do we promote a system of supremacy over equality in a relationship?Now there is an outdated concept of marriage. I have not not heard that one used in many a year.

[Bright Eyes]

Did they not also say that the church does not have to preform the union. I will not call it a marrage. I can almost for certain say that no priest here will preform it in the catholic church nor shall I attend one.
Civil unions have been perfectly legal for years. Sea captains can even marry onboard ships. :D

No one is forcing the church to do anything ... calm yourself ...

[Chief Hoult]

Did they not also say that the church does not have to preform the union. I will not call it a marrage. I can almost for certain say that no priest here will preform it in the catholic church nor shall I attend one.

As the Justices stated, and as othters have mentioned, the court said they don't believe religious institutions should have to perform the ceremonies.

Regardless of what you think though, if passed, they will be married, and as you don't HAVE to call them a marriage (no one can force you), they will be married.

CH

[jhunter]

The court indicated religious leaders will not have to perform sam-sex marriages if they choose not to, but what next? Should two Catholic gays get married in a civil ceremony, then want to atttend their parish's marriage retreat, can the church deny it, based on the fact that the church does not recognise that they are married?

The Catholic Church, along with several other recognized world-religions (official definition has been made) reserve the right to "excommunicate", or otherwise expel, members for any infraction against their beliefs, or otherwise known as sin.

In many Western Provinces, it is not uncommon for re-married devorcees to be excommunicated. I imagine that excommunication will be used to provide a buffer between religion and gay marriage where the particular religion does not recognize a sacrament between two people of the same sex.

[SLt Merrall]

I'm glad this is finally going through the commons. I think it will pass. If it is a free vote, it should pass, but will be close. If it is a confidence vote, then the parties will split, but with the support of most of the liberals as well as a good chunk of the NDP and the Quebecois, I think it will also pass. The Conservative Party will probably be united against the bill no matter what kind of vote they have.

[DA Wright]

Civil unions have been perfectly legal for years. Sea captains can even marry onboard ships. :D

No one is forcing the church to do anything ... calm yourself ...

I think you mean Common Law spousal status has been legal for years, marriage licences in Canada, which are required for either religious or civil marriage, could not be given to same sex applicants until the Ontario court ruled the definition of marriage unconstitutional.

A Sea Captain cannot marry outside of international waters without authority of the country in whose waters the ship is sailing, and not all countries will recognise a marriage at sea.

[Slippery Pete]

I'm glad this is finally going through the commons. I think it will pass. If it is a free vote, it should pass, but will be close. If it is a confidence vote, then the parties will split, but with the support of most of the liberals as well as a good chunk of the NDP and the Quebecois, I think it will also pass. The Conservative Party will probably be united against the bill no matter what kind of vote they have.

I do not believe this will be a motion of confidence. The leaders concerned have indicated it is a free vote and should vote for their riding (amazing). As stated, if this federal bill is passed a Province could not then enact the "not-withstanding" clause.

[DA Wright]

I do not believe this will be a motion of confidence. The leaders concerned have indicated it is a free vote and should vote for their riding (amazing). As stated, if this federal bill is passed a Province could not then enact the "not-withstanding" clause.

A free vote for all but the liberal cabinet, who will be required to endorse the same-sex bill.

[Bright Eyes]

I think you mean Common Law spousal status has been legal for years, marriage licences in Canada, which are required for either religious or civil marriage, could not be given to same sex applicants until the Ontario court ruled the definition of marriage unconstitutional.
I meant marriages performed outside a church by a non-religious official ... like a judge. Aren't those called civil unions? Or at least a civil ceremony, maybe that's where I got the idea.

[JMcKay]

The court indicated religious leaders will not have to perform sam-sex marriages if they choose not to, but what next? Should two Catholic gays get married in a civil ceremony, then want to atttend their parish's marriage retreat, can the church deny it, based on the fact that the church does not recognise that they are married?


Well, to be be precise, the Roman Catholic Church does not officially recognize the marriage of its parishoners outside of the Church, meaning that in the eyes of the Church a Catholic who marries in a ceremony presided over by the Justice of the Peace (or the Municipal Clerk in Ontario, now) is not married. Therefore the situation you describe could just as easily occur with a straight male/female couple.

An interesting side-note, because the civil marriage is not recognized by the Church, the couple can be divorced and re-marry (in the church this time if so desired) without an annulment from the Pontiff. A couple that has married in the Church in the first instance must not only secure a divorce through the courts, but also petition the Vatican for an annulment of the union (not an easy thing to get), otherwise they would be limited to civil services in the future.

[DA Wright]

I meant marriages performed outside a church by a non-religious official ... like a judge. Aren't those called civil unions? Or at least a civil ceremony, maybe that's where I got the idea.

In Ontario, under the Marriage Act, what you referred to as a civil union is a civil marriage. I don't mean to be picky, it is just that in the context of gay marriage, it is significant. There was a strong push by some people to not change the definition of the word "marriage", but to introduce the term "civil union" and define it in identical fashion to "civil marriage" but replace "between a man and a women" to some equivalent of "between two persons of the same sex". This would have given gays and lesbians equal status in law, but have kept the defintion of marriage unchanged. The federal government has clearly indicated it is not persuing this option.

[DA Wright]

Well, to be be precise, the Roman Catholic Church does not officially recognize the marriage of its parishoners outside of the Church, meaning that in the eyes of the Church a Catholic who marries in a ceremony presided over by the Justice of the Peace (or the Municipal Clerk in Ontario, now) is not married. Therefore the situation you describe could just as easily occur with a straight male/female couple.

True, but the church wouldn't ask for a marriage certificate to go on a retreat, as long as you signed up as husband and wife. They would likely notice if two men or two women arrived as a couple.

What if the Municipal Clerk's religious beliefs do not support gay marriage? I wonder if they can decline and pass it on to another clerk, or if they would lose their job? There are still many things that need to be addressed to come to a fair balance between respect for equality rights and respect for religious convictions.

[Chief Hoult]

True, but the church wouldn't ask for a marriage certificate to go on a retreat, as long as you signed up as husband and wife. They would likely notice if two men or two women arrived as a couple.

What if the Municipal Clerk's religious beliefs do not support gay marriage? I wonder if they can decline and pass it on to another clerk, or if they would lose their job? There are still many things that need to be addressed to come to a fair balance between respect for equality rights and respect for religious convictions.

Apparently some place in the states, the pharmacist can refuse to fill a Rx for birth control.

CH

[Lola]

Apparently some place in the states, the pharmacist can refuse to fill a Rx for birth control.

CH

I think that's in all the states. Also, recently a bill was passed that makes a pharmacist's refusal unpunishable. So, yeah... that sucks for women down there.

Anyways, I think it's great that Canada is closer to making same-sex marriages legal. But I really don't get people's silliness over changing the marriage definition. They want gays to have the same benefits and rights as a het. marriage, but it can't be called a marriage? :confused:

[Marlin]

It would be a mistake to compare this decision to that of the "persons" case. The decision of changing marriage to include a union between any two people now rests with Commons. All groups concerned already agreed that gays and lesbians are people with equal rights guaranteed by the Charter. The Court refused to comment on whether purely heterosexual marriage is Constitutional.

The decision is not a charter decision but one of Federal Powers. It was about whether the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to change the definition of marriage and thus block provinces from applying the not-withstanding clause. This change of definition is what has opposition groups so upset. They hold the view that as people, gays and lesbians are free to have unions. They ask that this union not be called marriage, but that they would be entitled to all the rights associated with marriage (taxes, health benefits, etc.) and that religious institutions not be forced to perform said union (which the groups did recieve).

I totally agree with your comments! Here in Canada individuals have the right to practice whatever life style they choose to practice! People died in wars so we can have this right. We as individuals sometimes forget that each person has the right to live their lives as they choose. Not as we choose for them.
Althought the Supreme Court ruling is not binding it will be difficult for provinces to envoke the not withstanding clause as it will violate a persons rights under the charter.

Interesting thread but probably better left for the politicians and courts to fight over. :sea:

[RatherBeFlyin]

I thought they ok'd it like months ago...Guess that was only in N.S......

[ArmyBoatswain]

I thought they OK'd it months ago as well.
Well, I think it's great that they're doing this.

[Wood]

Althought the Supreme Court ruling is not binding it will be difficult for provinces to envoke the not withstanding clause as it will violate a persons rights under the charter.



Not actually... the notwithstanding clause purpose is to overide any decision made by the supreme court regarding the charter. However I'm fairly cerain that the Constitution Act 1867 gave the powers to define marriage to the Federal Government, which severly limits any provincial objections that could be made.

In any case, I'm very happy with the movement of our government on this issue. When the debate is done every one in Canada is going to be able to say we're a little freer.

In objection to the points made in this thread. Not allowing gays to marry to protect them from discrimination at the hands of the church, isn't a very good excuse. The fact that social discrimination exists is also a terrible excuse to continue enforcing legal discrimination. Just because slavery was made illegal did that suddenly mean that Blacks had equal rights (even before the law). And then once they obtained equal rights before the law, there was still all the social discrimination.

Law is nortorious for not keeping up with the demands of society, but at times like this it has to lead. It has to sieze giving acceptability to hate.

[Tinkkerbelle]

I'm glad my neighbors to the North are being open-minded. I wish my own country would, however... Canada is looking more and more appealing...

[Tomtom]

The court indicated religious leaders will not have to perform sam-sex marriages if they choose not to, but what next? Should two Catholic gays get married in a civil ceremony, then want to atttend their parish's marriage retreat, can the church deny it, based on the fact that the church does not recognise that they are married?



The church already has the right to decide who it will and will not marry. Each minister reserves the right to refuse a marriage. For example, my mother, an Anglican priest, requires that all persons who will be married by her attend marriage counseling with her so she can explain what "marriage" really is and to see if the couple are truly ready. If she feels they are not, she will refuse and they have to find another person or wait until she is satisfied. She does this all the time. Even in the case of myself and my fiancee. My mother will perform our ceramony, only after our counseling is complete to her satisfaction.

Also, most Anglican priests require that the couple they will marry, attend regularly to their church or to another church and participate in church services. Most will not just marry any person who asks.

Another example. Before my mother became an Anglican priest, she was living with her then boyfriend. She was an employee of the church, as well as a layperson. The Rev'd at the time excused her from all church duties except the administration role in the office due to this sin. When she had her boyfriend move out, she was then allowed to participate in church services again. My now ordained mother does this with her own congregation all the time.

I don't see how anything has changed with this decision that Churches reserve the right not to marry gays. They already have that right. Some churches are already marrying them... some are not. Just seems like a public relations line in the law to me.

[Juice]

Well, to be be precise, the Roman Catholic Church does not officially recognize the marriage of its parishoners outside of the Church, meaning that in the eyes of the Church a Catholic who marries in a ceremony presided over by the Justice of the Peace (or the Municipal Clerk in Ontario, now) is not married. Therefore the situation you describe could just as easily occur with a straight male/female couple.

Haha, funny story. When my parents wanted to get us ("us" being my brothers and I) baptized, the Catholic church would not recognize my parents marriage because my mom was baptized a different sect of Christianity, so in their eyes, my brothers and I were born outside of marriage and therefore unworthy to be cleansed by the waters of Christ (ok, so maybe I played that up to be a bit more negative than it really was, but needless to say I am still a bit bitter at the RC Church in Wallaceburg). So my parents got fed up and brought us to Belgium and they baptized us RC over there with no problems.

[Tinkkerbelle]

Yeah, the Catholic church is very hypocritical...

[wb256]

please, try not to bash any religions here. any discussion concerning which religion is "better" is pretty much a waste of time, because we'll never know God's thoughts (assuming he/she exists...anyways, you understand what I mean).

some of their policies may seem hypocritical to you, but I know for a fact that there are many practicing catholics that use this site.

[Juice]

Of course. My story was not meant to bash teh Catholic religion, just the specific church in Wallaceburg. I have no problems with Catholicism in itself, as I was baptized Catholic, without problems, over in Europe. Catholicism in itself isn't bad, I just think that Catholicism, more specifically priests and the like, like many other sects of Christianity, and every other religion for that matter, can be a bit too selective and exclusive sometimes.

[wb256]

that is a valid argument. I was reffering to the comment above yours.

If someone made a comment like "homosexuals are hypocritical" we'd be all over it. Let's keep some respect for the church when we talk in here.

[Preece]

you wouldnt believe how many people are against same sex marriages! the subject came up at school with my friends and soo many of them got pissed off because some of us agreed with it. Even most teachers at my school disagree with same sex marriages. i asked my math teacher what he thought and he said he was against it because the bible said that it should be male and female or something like that. I was thinking....its a book....*i know its more important to you out there that are believers...* and as long as they are happy...whats the big deal?? I mean, if your in love and want to get married...i dont see the big deal, its not hurting anyone..all you gotta do is learn to accept it. I hope this doesnt turn into anything like it was when different races were discriminated against. I mean, isnt that just as bad? Your discriminating/taking away rights of someone because of their lifestyle.. I dont know about you but that sounds kinda the same.

And one of my friends said it was "unnessecary" (sp?) to show the two men kissing in christina aguileras music video "beautiful" isnt that what shes trying to show you? You can still be beautiful and be different then other people? actually, they arent really that different then us, they just live a different lifestyle, come to think of it...everyone does....but thats just my opinion..and i respect everyone elses...but when you say that something like that was unnessecary....and it was trying to prove to people like my friend that you can be beautiful and whatnot...its kinda "unnessecary" to say that...............

[SLt Merrall]

you wouldnt believe how many people are against same sex marriages! the subject came up at school with my friends and soo many of them got pissed off because some of us agreed with it. Even most teachers at my school disagree with same sex marriages. i asked my math teacher what he thought and he said he was against it because the bible said that it should be male and female or something like that. I was thinking....its a book....*i know its more important to you out there that are believers...* and as long as they are happy...whats the big deal?? I mean, if your in love and want to get married...i dont see the big deal, its not hurting anyone..all you gotta do is learn to accept it. I hope this doesnt turn into anything like it was when different races were discriminated against. I mean, isnt that just as bad? Your discriminating/taking away rights of someone because of their lifestyle.. I dont know about you but that sounds kinda the same.

Oh yes I would believe it. I find it interesting when people quote the bible when arguing against same-sex marriage. Before I go further, let me say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just making a point, and I fully respect everyone's freedom of belief and their right to practice how they please.

When people take a religious stand point, they are effectively making arguments which should have no bearing on the debate. That's great the bible speaks against homosexuality, but the seperation between church and state effectively eliminates any legitimacy (sp?) that religious arguments have in this debate, as presently it is a legal one.

I recently wrote an essay on same-sex marriage, and while doing so I had a chance to study some of the Bible in order to tackle religious objections to equal marriage. The most commonly used passage is Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Because it is in their scripture, Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have every right to use this arguement. But in my opinion, if they want to obey part of Leviticus, then they should obey all of it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids people to wear clothing woven of two fibers. One might wonder how many Christian opponents of same-sex marriage wear polyester.

Anyway, thats my bit to add to this conversation.

[Preece]

Oh yes I would believe it. I find it interesting when people quote the bible when arguing against same-sex marriage. Before I go further, let me say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just making a point, and I fully respect everyone's freedom of belief and their right to practice how they please.

When people take a religious stand point, they are effectively making arguments which should have no bearing on the debate. That's great the bible speaks against homosexuality, but the seperation between church and state effectively eliminates any legitimacy (sp?) that religious arguments have in this debate, as presently it is a legal one.

I recently wrote an essay on same-sex marriage, and while doing so I had a chance to study some of the Bible in order to tackle religious objections to equal marriage. The most commonly used passage is Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Because it is in their scripture, Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have every right to use this arguement. But in my opinion, if they want to obey part of Leviticus, then they should obey all of it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids people to wear clothing woven of two fibers. One might wonder how many Christian opponents of same-sex marriage wear polyester.

Anyway, thats my bit to add to this conversation.



just sayin what my teacher said to me when i asked him why..

[Marlin]

Oh yes I would believe it. I find it interesting when people quote the bible when arguing against same-sex marriage. Before I go further, let me say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just making a point, and I fully respect everyone's freedom of belief and their right to practice how they please.

When people take a religious stand point, they are effectively making arguments which should have no bearing on the debate. That's great the bible speaks against homosexuality, but the seperation between church and state effectively eliminates any legitimacy (sp?) that religious arguments have in this debate, as presently it is a legal one.

I recently wrote an essay on same-sex marriage, and while doing so I had a chance to study some of the Bible in order to tackle religious objections to equal marriage. The most commonly used passage is Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Because it is in their scripture, Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have every right to use this arguement. But in my opinion, if they want to obey part of Leviticus, then they should obey all of it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids people to wear clothing woven of two fibers. One might wonder how many Christian opponents of same-sex marriage wear polyester.

Anyway, thats my bit to add to this conversation.
As I indicated earlier, we in Canada live in a free and democratic society! In saying that people of all races have the right to practice their religion in a manner that they choose. Who gives members of other religions the right to pass judgement on others! I am not a person of religious conviction but maybe different religions were formed so that any person could live by thier higher spiritual being and understand a true meaning of spirituality.
I do believe that we have the rights to live in this country the way that we choose to live not in a way that any other person chooses for us!

:cool:

[DMCorrigan]

As I indicated earlier, we in Canada live in a free and democratic society! In saying that people of all races have the right to practice their religion in a manner that they choose.


...I happen to be an extreme satanist, and in my religion, we sacrifice virgins, babies, and International Issues moderators...

I'm really not, but in the Canada that you describe, I could practise 'my religion in a matter that [I] choose', which could include such sacrifices, né?

[Lt(N) Deck]

that is a valid argument. I was reffering to the comment above yours.

If someone made a comment like "homosexuals are hypocritical" we'd be all over it. Let's keep some respect for the church when we talk in here.


In my opinion....

The Catholic Church (and many other Christian religions) in and of itself is not hypocritical. Several hundred years behind the times, perhaps, but not hyporcritical. The various faiths are pretty clear in their teachings and beliefs...it is the followers who want more shades of grey than their particular faith allows for. If a particulr flavour of faith is too black and white for you, you should change to one that has a few more greys (ie, United, Anglican, etc.)

Many of these hypocritical followers fail to take into account some of the basic teachings of their supposed saviour, Jesus Christ. The Jesus character in the bible associated with prostitutes, lepers, poor people, foreigners, all the people that current day "good Christians" could not even fathom themselves getting anywhere close to. Their Jesus, so the stories go, hung out with, broke bread and drank with, all the sinners and undesirables. Though not explicitly stated, it is not hard to imagine that this included homosexuals as well.

So why is it that the modern day "good Christians" have such a hard time even being around homosexuals? They ought to take a good long look at their WWJD bracelets...

Case in point:

http://ap.savannahnow.com/pstories/us/20050102/2694408.shtml

Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.

The group demanded that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings, the Los Angeles Times reported in Sunday's editions. Church doctrine opposes gay relationships and adoption by same-sex couples.

"The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned," John R. Nixon told the Times. "We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to."

School officials rejected the demand, and issued a new policy stating that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school."

The parents' demand would presumably prevent two adopted boys whose parents are both men from attending the school's kindergarten.

The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.

"This is the quagmire that the parents' position represents," he said. "It's a slippery slope to go down."

The boys' parents, who enrolled their children at the beginning of the school year, declined to comment to the Times.

Some parents have promised to ask the Vatican to intervene and some have threatened to pull their children from the school. Others are worried the boys' attendance will set a precedent, saying their presence is part of a larger effort by the gay community to change the church.

"The boys are being used as pawns by these men to further their agenda," said Monica Sii, who has four children at the school.

Major respect here for the superintendent priest who pointed out the potential hypocrisy it would cause to exclude only the child of those 2 homosexuals, yet allow the children of divorced parents, parents who have used birth control, or were married outside the church (who would be bas-tard children in the eyes of the church.) Some people get so blinded by their own phobias they are all to eager to cast that first stone...

[WO1 Laura Pinke]

People say that many Man/Woman Marriages are ending in divorce, and that is becoming a more and more common practice. However, reports have been made that many of the Same-Sex Marriages are quickly ending in divorce as well. I wonder why this is so. Religious people frown on divorces of Men and Women, and I can't even begin to imagine what they must think of divorces between same sex partners.

I also notice that the Same-Sex Marriages are receiving the same benefits from the Government as Man and Woman who are married. Marriage was defined as a religious union between a man and a woman. I don't see why people insist that they be married, when they can live as common law spouses. Are there more benefits to being "Married"? Are there less benefits to being "Common Law"? I also wonder how many of these People having same sex marriages are actually consistant with their religion.

These are just some points I've noted over the course of this issue.

[wb256]

People say that many Man/Woman Marriages are ending in divorce, and that is becoming a more and more common practice. However, reports have been made that many of the Same-Sex Marriages are quickly ending in divorce as well. I wonder why this is so. Religious people frown on divorces of Men and Women, and I can't even begin to imagine what they must think of divorces between same sex partners.

I also notice that the Same-Sex Marriages are receiving the same benefits from the Government as Man and Woman who are married. Marriage was defined as a religious union between a man and a woman. I don't see why people insist that they be married, when they can live as common law spouses. Are there more benefits to being "Married"? Are there less benefits to being "Common Law"? I also wonder how many of these People having same sex marriages are actually consistant with their religion.

These are just some points I've noted over the course of this issue.


Consistent with their religion? How many heterosexual couples are consistent with theirs?

Sure, the church can frown upon whatever they want, but they don't control society, the people do collectivly.

And they want the term "married", because "common law" is a lesser title. They want their love to be recognized legally on the same level as heterosexual love. These linguistic symbolisms are greatly important to some people.

[AMothfromWpg]

Now I just have a question with regards to the word - marriage
What is the difference between civil union and marriage - because this is causing me great confusion. Aren't they the same thing? Isn't someone in a civil union married? What happens when a Justice of the Peace marries someone?

On the notion of commonlaw vice married - maybe we should do away with the inequalities of each title and make each equal in the entitlements of their significant other?
---

And on the notion about marriages are strictly a religious item? Bullhooey. States have been acknowledging marriages as a civil union and recognition for eons- before alot of these religions came to be. Take a look into ancient civilizations, you'll see what I mean.

[SLt Merrall]

just sayin what my teacher said to me when i asked him why..

I know. I wasn't arguing with you, I was just adding to the conversation... ;)

[DA Wright]

On the notion of commonlaw vice married - maybe we should do away with the inequalities of each title and make each equal in the entitlements of their significant other?

The supreme court has ruled previously that a common-law relationship is very different from a marriage. A marriage (civil or religious) is a binding contract committing two people together " 'till death do them part" (OK realistically, for an indeterminent length of time) that has legal worth. A common-law relationship is not a contract, it may be declared if you meet the criteria and elect to do so, and you can opt back out at will.

At the break-up of a common-law relationship, you have very different rights and claims than upon a divorce settlement.

Currently, at least in Ontario, there is no such thing as a "civil union". Marriage is marriage, and requires a marriage licence to be issued by the Province and for the marriage to be performed by an authorised person and duly witnessed. A "civil marriage" is one performed by a municipal clerk (used to be done by a JP), and not by an official of a recognised religious body.

The term "civil union" is being recommended by people offended by the use of the term "marriage" for two persons of the same gender. The idea being that marriage (civil or otherwise) = straight couple, and civil union = gay couple; same rights, priviledges and responsibilities, just different names.

Common-law is (and has, for some time, been) open to both gay and straight couples who either co-habitate for one year "in a spousal relationship", or who have a child together. Again, this is very different status than married.

[Juice]

Oh yes I would believe it. I find it interesting when people quote the bible when arguing against same-sex marriage. Before I go further, let me say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just making a point, and I fully respect everyone's freedom of belief and their right to practice how they please.

When people take a religious stand point, they are effectively making arguments which should have no bearing on the debate. That's great the bible speaks against homosexuality, but the seperation between church and state effectively eliminates any legitimacy (sp?) that religious arguments have in this debate, as presently it is a legal one.

I recently wrote an essay on same-sex marriage, and while doing so I had a chance to study some of the Bible in order to tackle religious objections to equal marriage. The most commonly used passage is Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Because it is in their scripture, Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have every right to use this arguement. But in my opinion, if they want to obey part of Leviticus, then they should obey all of it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids people to wear clothing woven of two fibers. One might wonder how many Christian opponents of same-sex marriage wear polyester.

Anyway, thats my bit to add to this conversation.
I made a post regarding the same argument in a different thread on this topic (two threads for the same topic? What's the world coming to? :p ). It was used in a book that was used for my Moral Reasoning class and was denounced for the same reasons, except it went into greater detail on the scripture passage in question.

[Juice]

People say that many Man/Woman Marriages are ending in divorce, and that is becoming a more and more common practice. However, reports have been made that many of the Same-Sex Marriages are quickly ending in divorce as well. I wonder why this is so. Religious people frown on divorces of Men and Women, and I can't even begin to imagine what they must think of divorces between same sex partners.

Theyre probably ending up in divorce for simialr reasons that heterosexual marriages do. Despite the fact that they are gay/lesbian, they are still human beings.

I also notice that the Same-Sex Marriages are receiving the same benefits from the Government as Man and Woman who are married. Marriage was defined as a religious union between a man and a woman. I don't see why people insist that they be married, when they can live as common law spouses. Are there more benefits to being "Married"? Are there less benefits to being "Common Law"? I also wonder how many of these People having same sex marriages are actually consistant with their religion.

These are just some points I've noted over the course of this issue.
It's a matter of prinicple. I believe that the term of "Civil Union" was already offered, whcih would give the same benefits as marriage, but it just wouldn't be considered marriage, and that was turned down (I think). Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?

Personally, I don't really like the idea of gay marriage, but as against it as I am, I simply cannot find any sort of credible reason why they should not be allowed to be, except for out-of-date rules and definitions that would require a huge amount of hypocrisy by heterosexuals in order for them to be adhered to. For that reason, I am forced to agree with the fact that they should be allowed to get married, as much as I do not like to. I mean no offense to anyone.

It's just not practical or possible to withhold the right to marry from homosexual couples.

[DA Wright]

I made a post regarding the same argument in a different thread on this topic (two threads for the same topic? What's the world coming to? :p ). It was used in a book that was used for my Moral Reasoning class and was denounced for the same reasons, except it went into greater detail on the scripture passage in question.

If separation of Church and State existed in Canada, the reasoning may be valid; however, the Canadian Constitution is founded on recognition of "the principle of the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

Canada may not have an official state religion, but Canadian law is founded on religious-based morals (fortunately, at least for the most part, more or less universally accepted ones). We are not, at least legally, a secular society.

[Juice]

If separation of Church and State existed in Canada, the reasoning may be valid; however, the Canadian Constitution is founded on recognition of "the principle of the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

Canada may not have an official state religion, but Canadian law is founded on religious-based morals (fortunately, at least for the most part, more or less universally accepted ones). We are not, at least legally, a secular society.
I wasn't arguing about the separation of church and state, just that the scripture passage in question would require us to do things that we already violate.

Here is my post from the other thread that was closed down a couple of months ago. Just some arguments that are against gay marriage that don't hold up. I've bolded the part about the Bible:

This is interpreted from James Rachels, a moral philospher who partially examined the idea of homosexuality.

The first argument against homosexuality is that they pose some sort of threat to society. This is a false pretense, because apart from being with the same sex, there is ultimately no difference in the relationships and interaction. It just proves that the idea that there is a threat from gays is a myth just like the myth that blacks are lazy, etc, etc.

The next idea is that homosexuality is somehow unnatural. Very hard to justify claim. It could be taken as a statistical notion, meaing that homosexuality is unnatural, and somehow bad, in the fact that it is not shared by the majority. False pretense again. That would mean that left-handedness is unnatural, etc. This cannot imply a bad thing, because rare qualities are often good.

Unnatural could be taken as going against one's "purpose." The parts of our body seem to serve a purpose. Ie. Fingers are used to grasp things, the heart is used to pump blood, the eyes are used to see. Similarly the purpose of our genitals would be for procreation, or rather, sex is for making babies. Homosexuality could then be called wrong because it does not serve that purpose. Again, a false pretense, because by that logic then, other forms of sex (like masturbation and oral sex)would be unnatural and bad as well, which clearly, at least in our society, is not considered bad. PLUS, according to this reasoning then, if we use our eyes or hands for any other purposes than those mentioned before, then we would be using them for bad things (ie. if we make a hand gesture or eye gesture of any kind).

Also, unnatural could be taken as a sinister term. Perhaps it means "contrary to what a person ought to be." However, if that is the case it becomes an empty term. It's saying that it is wrong because it is wrong. It gives no reason for condemning the practice.

Then there is the Bible. Apparently it condemns homosexuality, which it very well may do, but such is the case that sacred texts give us more than what we bargain for. Leviticus 18:22 says that "You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Now not many people have read Leviticus, but of we are supposed to take that statement literally, then we must take verything that goes with it. There are a number of rules about priest's daughters. For example, if the priest's daughter "plays the whore," she shall be burned alive (21:9). Also, Leviticus forbids the eating of fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after she has given birth (12:4-5) and seeing your uncle naked (which is also an abomination according to 18:14, 26). It says a beard must have square corners (19:27) and that we may purchase slaves from neighbouring states (25:44). I think the point is made.

One cannot conclude that just because homosexuality is deemed an abomination in Leviticus that it is wrong, because then we are committed to following all these other decrees laid out here, which clearly would be considered wrong, or at the very least, completely against social convention and our view of morality. We should not just accept the idea that something is wrong just because we are told it is. We should be able to ask WHY the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and expect an answer. Until there is that answer, there really is no reason to say that it is wrong.

Now just to reiterate, I was just putting forth the ideas that james Rachels does in his book "The Elements of Moral Philosophy", New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. I agree with his ideas here, and based on what he says in his book, I lean towards the idea that gays should be allowed to marry, not because I think that it is right or anything like that, but because I have seen no justifiable evidence to suggest that they should not be allowed to be married.

Hope that makes sense to everyone, and I hope you can see what I was arguing in terms of the scripture. It was completely independent of the fact that we are not legally a religion-free state.

[Preece]

I know. I wasn't arguing with you, I was just adding to the conversation... ;)


lol oops im sorry i musta read it wrong :( im sowwie

[SLt Merrall]

I also notice that the Same-Sex Marriages are receiving the same benefits from the Government as Man and Woman who are married. Marriage was defined as a religious union between a man and a woman. I don't see why people insist that they be married, when they can live as common law spouses. Are there more benefits to being "Married"? Are there less benefits to being "Common Law"? I also wonder how many of these People having same sex marriages are actually consistant with their religion.

These are just some points I've noted over the course of this issue.

Marriage may be looked at as a religious union, but in law it is not. The definition of marriage is a law in Canada, and because of the seperation of church and state, marriage is not a religious definition.

[SLt Merrall]

lol oops im sorry i musta read it wrong :( im sowwie

No worries. :D

[Walsh]

I support gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot.

[Preece]

I support gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot.


so typical..

[Walsh]

so typical.. meh

its a sweet Tee too..
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a286/a286.gif

[Juice]

Marriage may be looked at as a religious union, but in law it is not. The definition of marriage is a law in Canada, and because of the seperation of church and state, marriage is not a religious definition.
Well, technically, you are incorrect. As posted earlier, which caused me to learn something new:

If separation of Church and State existed in Canada, the reasoning may be valid; however, the Canadian Constitution is founded on recognition of "the principle of the supremacy of God and the rule of law".

Canada may not have an official state religion, but Canadian law is founded on religious-based morals (fortunately, at least for the most part, more or less universally accepted ones). We are not, at least legally, a secular society.

[SLt Merrall]

Well, technically, you are incorrect. As posted earlier, which caused me to learn something new:

Legally, there IS a seperation of Church and State - the Government of Canada is supposed to be a seperate entity, and it is technically seperate. It is, however, greatly influenced by the religions of today, and so our laws tend to reflect religious values. That, I have no problem with, just so long as it is not infringing anyone's rights. If the government of Canada were to make their marriage laws conform with religious teachings, such as Catholicism, that WOULD infringe rights, and so that was my point. I hope I'm not being confusing, because that even sounded weird to me... :rolleyes:

[SLt Merrall]

I support gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot.

I hope that was said in jest. If it wasn't, there is no place for it here.

[BHillUSMC]

I think it is fine. I hope America allows it soon. But i Guarantee you it wont happen before 2008 but it WILL soon enough.

[Occhipinti]

. But more specifically, where does the gov't intend to draw the line? A priest is not allowed to marry gays and lesbians, but will the courts convict him due to his "discrimination" of gays? Granted i'm only pertaining to the religious aspect. If the want to make marrige a legal institute, with pre-numps and contracts,hence allowing gays to marry, the gov't might think of openning another burecratic office in which it's citizens, non denominational and non gender specific, can get into a legal marrige contract.Until then, I will not support marrige of gays.

[Wood]

. But more specifically, where does the gov't intend to draw the line? A priest is not allowed to marry gays and lesbians, but will the courts convict him due to his "discrimination" of gays? Granted i'm only pertaining to the religious aspect. If the want to make marrige a legal institute, with pre-numps and contracts,hence allowing gays to marry, the gov't might think of openning another burecratic office in which it's citizens, non denominational and non gender specific, can get into a legal marrige contract.Until then, I will not support marrige of gays.


First question... NO. That's what the supreme court just ruled, nor can he be "convicted" of discrimination, its not a crime, at least not when applied to private citizens.

We already have non religious figures who can marry you. How do you think nonreligious people get married? Examples include Justices of the Peace and I believe sea captains.

I don't find your final conclusion logical? You claim there's no ways for them to get married (untrue), therefore you don't support them getting married. How does that make sense to you, so if two people are able to get married you don't support them getting married because its impossible?

[SLt Merrall]

First question... NO. That's what the supreme court just ruled, nor can he be "convicted" of discrimination, its not a crime, at least not when applied to private citizens.

We already have non religious figures who can marry you. How do you think nonreligious people get married? Examples include Justices of the Peace and I believe sea captains.

I don't find your final conclusion logical? You claim there's no ways for them to get married (untrue), therefore you don't support them getting married. How does that make sense to you, so if two people are able to get married you don't support them getting married because its impossible?

You took the words right out of my mouth. There is definetly a method for gay couples to marry. In BC alone, between July 2003 and December of last year, there were approximately 1,740 same-sex marriages here.

[wb256]

Also, some chruches will perform homosexual weddings...

[Occhipinti]

Marrige: Religious institute or legal contract? it all depends on your views. As a Catholic, it is consider a sacred union of a man and woman in the eyes of god. The governing body, which 'supposedly' has a non existance in religious matters ,considers a marrige a legal union of two 'persons'. All i was saying is that, if the so called non religious goverment wants to continue to appear that way, non religiously bound, i feel they should stay out of religious affairs including marrige. why? because it should be a two way street. If the state is seperate from church,meaning they don't have a state religion and don't have influence from any religious body, should the state not be out of religious affairs. Although i may appear discriminatory in my statements, i am not. i am a christian that must follow the rules of the catholic church, and that of god. All i say is for government to stay out of my religion, including marriage.

[~G0D~]

here is a website our biblical studies teacher gave us when we were doing stuff on homosexuality .etc
http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm
they make an interesting point, but i do stress that the opinions put foward are not my own and I dont condone anything its saying yada yada yada
(dont want to get crucified, but its interesting nonetheless)

[DA Wright]

First question... NO. That's what the supreme court just ruled, nor can he be "convicted" of discrimination, its not a crime, at least not when applied to private citizens.

Yet BC has fired several Marriage Clerks who would not issue licenses or perform civil marriages for gay couples because it goes against their religious beliefs. Expect the court challenge on that issue next...it's not unlike firing a Doctor because they won't perform an abortion.

[wb256]

Marrige: Religious institute or legal contract? it all depends on your views. As a Catholic, it is consider a sacred union of a man and woman in the eyes of god. The governing body, which 'supposedly' has a non existance in religious matters ,considers a marrige a legal union of two 'persons'. All i was saying is that, if the so called non religious goverment wants to continue to appear that way, non religiously bound, i feel they should stay out of religious affairs including marrige. why? because it should be a two way street. If the state is seperate from church,meaning they don't have a state religion and don't have influence from any religious body, should the state not be out of religious affairs. Although i may appear discriminatory in my statements, i am not. i am a christian that must follow the rules of the catholic church, and that of god. All i say is for government to stay out of my religion, including marriage.


Then, should the government refuse to marry all the heterosexual couples who arn't religious? Do you realize that a large portion of heterosexual weddings are not actually held in churches?

Canada is a multi-cultural country, with multiple religions. Some of these religions allow same sex marriages! They would be discriminating against other religion's right to practice their beliefs if we didn't allow same sex marriage.

Catholicism dosn't completely represent the church in Canada. Therefore, it dosn't have the monopoly in the marriage racket around here;)

[SLt Merrall]

Yet BC has fired several Marriage Clerks who would not issue licenses or perform civil marriages for gay couples because it goes against their religious beliefs. Expect the court challenge on that issue next...it's not unlike firing a Doctor because they won't perform an abortion.

I haven't heard about this before, so before I give my opinion on it, I will need to do a bit of reading. If it is as black and white as you propose, then it is truly unfortunate, however, something tells me that there is more to it than you have said.

[SLt Merrall]

Marrige: Religious institute or legal contract? it all depends on your views. As a Catholic, it is consider a sacred union of a man and woman in the eyes of god. The governing body, which 'supposedly' has a non existance in religious matters ,considers a marrige a legal union of two 'persons'. All i was saying is that, if the so called non religious goverment wants to continue to appear that way, non religiously bound, i feel they should stay out of religious affairs including marrige. why? because it should be a two way street. If the state is seperate from church,meaning they don't have a state religion and don't have influence from any religious body, should the state not be out of religious affairs. Although i may appear discriminatory in my statements, i am not. i am a christian that must follow the rules of the catholic church, and that of god. All i say is for government to stay out of my religion, including marriage.

Who said marriage only belonged to catholics? There was plenty of marriage long before the Catholic Church was even in its infancy. To blindly label marriage as a Catholic institution alone is simply ignorant.

[wb256]

I haven't heard about this before, so before I give my opinion on it, I will need to do a bit of reading. If it is as black and white as you propose, then it is truly unfortunate, however, something tells me that there is more to it than you have said.


There's nothing wrong with these firings in my opinion. A job as a public servant can result in you doing things tht are against your religious beliefs, but it's your job. It's not forcing the church to do anything, it's simply a job requirment.

What if a mennonite joined the army, and then refused to fight on the grounds of it conflicting with his/her moral beliefs when they were called to war?

The person was hired for a job. If they refuse to do it, they get fired. I don't want my taxes spent on wages for people who can select what they will and will not do around a workplace. Demanding a change in dress is one thing...demanding to be hired for a job and then refuse to do it completely...is another thing all together.

[DA Wright]

There's nothing wrong with these firings in my opinion. A job as a public servant can result in you doing things tht are against your religious beliefs, but it's your job. It's not forcing the church to do anything, it's simply a job requirment.

What if a mennonite joined the army, and then refused to fight on the grounds of it conflicting with his/her moral beliefs when they were called to war?

The person was hired for a job. If they refuse to do it, they get fired. I don't want my taxes spent on wages for people who can select what they will and will not do around a workplace. Demanding a change in dress is one thing...demanding to be hired for a job and then refuse to do it completely...is another thing all together.

Pretty harsh. Would you also fire someone who lost a limb in an accident and could no longer perform a small portion of their job, or would you let them share that task with someone who can? Same deal. Municipal Clerks do loads of things beside marriages, and all but the smallest municipal offices have more than one clerk. MPs will be allowed to vote their conscience in the house, citizens should be able to practice theirs. Certainly, the question of which takes precedence, personal conviction or professional duty is one issue which will wind up back at the supreme court.

[N. McKay]

Pretty harsh. Would you also fire someone who lost a limb in an accident and could no longer perform a small portion of their job, or would you let them share that task with someone who can? Same deal.

I don't know that it is. I don't think it's necessarily correct to compare a disability resulting from an injury to a voluntary decision to follow a specific religion.

Public servants have responsibilities beyond their personal feelings. If someone in a front-line job belongs to a very conservative religious sect that insists that women must dress conservatively, is that employee justified in refusing to serve women who show up dressed in a manner usually associated with prostitutes? Certainly not, regardless of who else is available to serve such customers.

[Lt(N) Bryan McIntyre]

Public servants have responsibilities beyond their personal feelings. If someone in a front-line job belongs to a very conservative religious sect that insists that women must dress conservatively, is that employee justified in refusing to serve women who show up dressed in a manner usually associated with prostitutes? Certainly not, regardless of who else is available to serve such customers.Well now let's make this really interesting and link it to the thread about the Lt(N) who wouldn't remove his headress (regardless of what he believed the next order was going to be). He went with his beliefs and while the military did not agree with him, the Supreme Court did. Again, he is in a "front line" position, if you will, and he knew the expectations of being there. So I agree that this one will make it's way to the Supreme Court as well. Chaos reigns.... Can beliefs on one subject be ruled as legit while other beliefs are ruled not?

[wb256]

Well now let's make this really interesting and link it to the thread about the Lt(N) who wouldn't remove his headress (regardless of what he believed the next order was going to be). He went with his beliefs and while the military did not agree with him, the Supreme Court did. Again, he is in a "front line" position, if you will, and he knew the expectations of being there. So I agree that this one will make it's way to the Supreme Court as well. Chaos reigns.... Can beliefs on one subject be ruled as legit while other beliefs are ruled not?

Because he didn't fail to perform his job by not removing his headress. Should a biology teacher who believes in creation science personally, be allowed to neglect teaching evolution and other areas of scientific study? No, he wouldn't be doing his job. Should a sikh teacher be allowed to wear a turban? Yes, his choice in hat (even if others are not permitted to wear hats) has no effect on the quality of education children are recieving.

I believe alotments should be made to maintain tradition, and special treatment is necessary (I do believe in collective rights), but you have to at least be willing to do the job you're hired to do.

[Lt(N) Bryan McIntyre]

Because he didn't fail to perform his job by not removing his headress. Well I don't know about that. Was part of his job while on parade to follow orders from superior officers. He thought not, the Surpreme court agreed while his employer did not agree. The Court wins. We'll have to see if the case mentioned earlier does wind it's way to the Surpreme Court. Your points are valid about the jobs you mentioned but if part of the job in the military is to follow orders then he did not. Even if he was Adm O or something else with a job description the rules of the military also become part of the job. No different in my mind to what the civil servants did.

[N. McKay]

Well now let's make this really interesting and link it to the thread about the Lt(N) who wouldn't remove his headress (regardless of what he believed the next order was going to be). He went with his beliefs and while the military did not agree with him, the Supreme Court did. Again, he is in a "front line" position, if you will, and he knew the expectations of being there. So I agree that this one will make it's way to the Supreme Court as well. Chaos reigns.... Can beliefs on one subject be ruled as legit while other beliefs are ruled not?

I don't support the Lt(N) in his childish hat-wearing protest, and I disagree with the Court Martial Appeal Court's ruling (the case hasn't been to the Supreme Court). It's even more abhorrent in the case of a Service member.

[Preece]

i thought this post was about same-sex marriages...

[Lt(N) Bryan McIntyre]

I don't support the Lt(N) in his childish hat-wearing protest, and I disagree with the Court Martial Appeal Court's ruling (the case hasn't been to the Supreme Court). It's even more abhorrent in the case of a Service member. You're right. My error.

[N. McKay]

It's very challenging to balance individual rights with responsibilities towards others -- and that's one issue that I don't think was even considered when the Charter of Rights was written.

[wb256]

It's very challenging to balance individual rights with responsibilities towards others -- and that's one issue that I don't think was even considered when the Charter of Rights was written.


The issue of individual rights vs collective rights is a pretty difficult one to tackle. I've really got no clue where to draw the line between the two.

[ChiefGunny]

look at this--> is this what Canada has to worry about most? I think that Homosexuals should have a different type of marriage, it might be segregation but I think that marriage is between and man and a women.

^but this is just my opinion^

[Wolfmann]

It's very challenging to balance individual rights with responsibilities towards others -- and that's one issue that I don't think was even considered when the Charter of Rights was written.

The Charter was written specifically for the individual. In fact, they did so because they felt the Supreme Court could decide collective rights as a representation of societal attitude at the moment of judgment.

[SLt Merrall]

[QUOTE=ChiefGunny]look at this--> is this what Canada has to worry about most? I think that Homosexuals should have a different type of marriage, it might be segregation but I think that marriage is between and man and a women.[QUOTE]

I disagree, a different type of marriage is not the equal marriage that the gay community has been seeking for decades.

I don't see what the big deal is to the opposition - how will allowing same-sex marriage hurt the institution of marriage?

[Wolfmann]

look at this--> is this what Canada has to worry about most? I think that Homosexuals should have a different type of marriage, it might be segregation but I think that marriage is between and man and a women.

^but this is just my opinion^

That would pretty much make their efforts at achieving equal rights pointless. Marriage is marriage. It is an institution that grants a specific status and within that status specific rights. Morals and ethics do not have anything to do with it.

Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with you, but I defend your right to say it."

There is no moral or ethical dilemma in this decision. Separation of Church from State is sufficiently necessary in this case to uphold the basic human rights and freedoms guaranteed by The Charter.

Like it or not, eventually it will happen.

[Wolfmann]

The issue of individual rights vs collective rights is a pretty difficult one to tackle. I've really got no clue where to draw the line between the two.

It's pretty easy:

Individual Rights: Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Collective Rights: Supreme Court of Canada (final decision).

[wb256]

It's pretty easy:

Individual Rights: Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Collective Rights: Supreme Court of Canada (final decision).


lol, it's not THAT easy. The two concepts contradict each other completely, and it's quite difficult to find a balance between the two. There are institutions protecting both types of rights in Canada, but philosophically it's difficult logic to believe at the same time. It's like doublethink.

[quadrapiper]

Just to add some fuel to this thread...

Here is another idea: abolish "marriage" as a legal institution entirely! Then, whatever a given religion feels like doing as far as recognizing a couple's commitment to one another is entirely their business, homosexuals can do whatever they like as far as ceremonials, and we will no longer be plagued with dvorce cases, which eat up court time and energy. Most divorces are more or less amicable; however, even the most amicable involves paying a lawyer - and if there are children involved, then the case automatically goes to court... and becomes subject to the vagaries of whatever judge is sitting at the time. This might sound far-fetched, but wouldn't it be a far cleaner way of resolving the issue? The only practical (as in applied to daily life, as opposed to moral) reason the federal government has any interest in marriage at all is for purposes of taxation... In this day and age, with the huge number of "alternative lifestyle choices" available to people (not just homosexuals) there seems little reason to maintain this archaic government involvement in a (on a scale of national priorities) comparitively trivial and unimportant private concern. Get government out of it, allow religions to do whatever they feel like (in regards to this issue), and get on to more important issues. The only people hurt would be the divorce lawyers...

[Juice]

Just to add some fuel to this thread...

Here is another idea: abolish "marriage" as a legal institution entirely! Then, whatever a given religion feels like doing as far as recognizing a couple's commitment to one another is entirely their business, homosexuals can do whatever they like as far as ceremonials, and we will no longer be plagued with dvorce cases, which eat up court time and energy. Most divorces are more or less amicable; however, even the most amicable involves paying a lawyer - and if there are children involved, then the case automatically goes to court... and becomes subject to the vagaries of whatever judge is sitting at the time. This might sound far-fetched, but wouldn't it be a far cleaner way of resolving the issue? The only practical (as in applied to daily life, as opposed to moral) reason the federal government has any interest in marriage at all is for purposes of taxation... In this day and age, with the huge number of "alternative lifestyle choices" available to people (not just homosexuals) there seems little reason to maintain this archaic government involvement in a (on a scale of national priorities) comparitively trivial and unimportant private concern. Get government out of it, allow religions to do whatever they feel like (in regards to this issue), and get on to more important issues. The only people hurt would be the divorce lawyers...
Maybe in a perfect world :rolleyes: Cause you know, religous sects don't have radicals in them that have no respect for other religions because they are the "one and only way." Yep, there would be no problems with your sytem :rolleyes:

The government NEEDS toregulate things like marriage because it is such a contentious issue. To allow anyone and everyone to just do what they feel like in terms of what they personally believe in terms of marriage is a really volatile form of relativism. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Im not saying with the definition of marriage as it stands, because I'm more for gay marriage than against it, but there has to be regulation.

[quadrapiper]

Maybe in a perfect world :rolleyes: Cause you know, religous sects don't have radicals in them that have no respect for other religions because they are the "one and only way." Yep, there would be no problems with your sytem :rolleyes:

Where did I mention anything about relying on religious groups to be nice to each other? I was suggesting that removing marriage as a legal institution would perhaps placate the more main-stream religious opponents, because a) they would probably be under less percieved threat, and b) because they (including the radicals) could still insist that gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord. (I'm personally in favour of gay marriages) Religious radicals will always dump on the competition, apostates, "heathens," and anyone else who doesn't follow their beliefs - I hope that nothing I wrote suggested otherwise.

The government NEEDS toregulate things like marriage because it is such a contentious issue. To allow anyone and everyone to just do what they feel like in terms of what they personally believe in terms of marriage is a really volatile form of relativism. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Im not saying with the definition of marriage as it stands, because I'm more for gay marriage than against it, but there has to be regulation.

What, specifically, do you feel needs to be regulated against? Bigamy, polygamy, etc? Incestuous relationships? The first two are only illegal because marriage exists as a legal institution - although, considering cases such as that of Bountiful in BC, there might be some need to prevent forced polygamy... As for the third, first of all, ewwwwwwww!, and secondly, I think that one is outlawed anyways, separate from matrimonial considerations.

[SLt Merrall]

As for the third, first of all, ewwwwwwww!, and secondly, I think that one is outlawed anyways, separate from matrimonial considerations.

Incesutous marriages are outlawed. There are strict regulations as to how distant a relative must be before you marry them.

So I did learn something in Law 12!

[SLt Merrall]

"alternative lifestyle choices" available to people

This phrase annoys me when referring to GLBT people, and this is just my opinion. First of all, in my talks with friends, I can tell you that I have met no one of a minority sexual orientation who has chosen to be gay. And secondly, I personally wouldn't classify it as a lifestyle - it's a life, period. But again - opinion, nothing more. :rolleyes:

[Wolfmann]

lol, it's not THAT easy. The two concepts contradict each other completely, and it's quite difficult to find a balance between the two. There are institutions protecting both types of rights in Canada, but philosophically it's difficult logic to believe at the same time. It's like doublethink.

You're right, it isn't easy and I don't mean to trivialize it, but maybe because I look at the world in shade's of grey I find it a little easier to cross muddy waters. I've dealt personally with issues like this. Take for example a peace officer's (police officer) powers to search without warrant.

There aren't any.

Unless you look at specific legislated acts such as the Narcotic Control Act, or the Fisheries Act or at provincial statutes that control gaming and wild life...a police officer gained their initial powers of search and seizure from common-law...which is the application of experience and policy. And those powers can and have been just as easily taken away as given. Something you can't do with legislated laws - at least without a long legal process of review.

As a result Judge's Rules were created that don't necessarily have a legal basis...but have been respected as "common law" or law's and legal policies that exist from court decisions and judge's rulings that have been carried on.

Until the Charter of Human Right's and Freedoms came along Canadian police really only had common-law, common-sense, and Sir Robert Peel's Peel's Principles to draw upon when dealing with suspects, victim's of crime, and the individual citizen. The Supreme Court of Canada was making decisions for us...defining for us what was and was not acceptable - they never had a rule book, other than common-law to help guide them.

Basically the CHRF re-wrote and invalidated certain aspects of Common Law and most definitely influenced Canadian law as a result. We knew where we stood and no one could technically push us around. This is what I mean where the distinction between individual rights and collective rights is so clearly defined. With the CHRF there was distinct, concrete guidelines for the individual.

If I smoke, I have a right to.

If I smoke in a group of individuals I still have a right to smoke, but do I have a right to share my smoke with the next person if they do not wish to smoke.

An individual cannot possibly accurately weigh the right between both smokers as you are no longer assessing rights at the individual level. Thus, you need a body of experienced, knowledge individuals to collective decide what is acceptable and what isn't...and NOW they have a rule book.

Look to the example of the Supreme Court's decisions on human right's cases and compare that against your own feelings and you can get a better idea of

[wb256]

I understand the differing types of rights. I don't really think you understand what exactly I'm reffering to. I'll go into more detail later.

[quadrapiper]

This phrase annoys me when referring to GLBT people, and this is just my opinion. First of all, in my talks with friends, I can tell you that I have met no one of a minority sexual orientation who has chosen to be gay. And secondly, I personally wouldn't classify it as a lifestyle - it's a life, period. But again - opinion, nothing more. :rolleyes:

Was actually reffering more to relationships (or lack thereof) that don't fit the monogamous couple mold... regardless of the sexual orientation of the people involved. Note the quotation marks - don't like the phrase myself, but thought that it would communicate my meaning...

[Boosey]

This phrase annoys me when referring to GLBT people, and this is just my opinion. First of all, in my talks with friends, I can tell you that I have met no one of a minority sexual orientation who has chosen to be gay. And secondly, I personally wouldn't classify it as a lifestyle - it's a life, period. But again - opinion, nothing more. :rolleyes:

If you think alternative lifestyles is bad, in University, they preach that "queer" is the appropriate term to use, unless you are gay, in which case you can use whatever term you're comfortable with. The word homosexual used to be defined American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. And calling people gay or lesbian was derogatory. Personally, I hate being referred to a queer, which plainly means wierd. For me, its gay all the way.

[Chief Hoult]

I haven't heard anything really preached here. I know we have a Pride club of some description, and I remember there be something in the University Paper where someone complained about the lyrics at the campus bar being anti-homosexual, and there was a small uproar about it.

CH

[Little Cadet]

If you think alternative lifestyles is bad, in University, they preach that "queer" is the appropriate term to use, unless you are gay, in which case you can use whatever term you're comfortable with. The word homosexual used to be defined American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. And calling people gay or lesbian was derogatory. Personally, I hate being referred to a queer, which plainly means wierd. For me, its gay all the way.

I guess it's a personal thing, I know some people who hate being called gay, and prefer being call queer. That's weird that they preach that, I've never really been told which was the "appropriate" term to use, just whatever the person identifies with.

[quadrapiper]

I'm getting a slap for that one.
The only question is from whom, and when... might have to open an entirely new thread just to handle the "slap piper" posts...

[SLt Merrall]

The meaning of queer WAS weird, strage, etc. But today queer *generally* refers to a different sexual orientation. A couple of my friends prefer queer, but some hate it with a passion. It's up to the preference of the person who wants to identify with a certain word.

[SLt Merrall]

The only question is from whom, and when... might have to open an entirely new thread just to handle the "slap piper" posts...

Hahahaha, oh my!

[Little Cadet]

The only question is from whom, and when... might have to open an entirely new thread just to handle the "slap piper" posts...

I guess I didn't hit hard enough, or he'll just never learn!

[Svejk]

A queer is a politcally active homosexual. It is a term that the Agitator's use: watch for the next newspaper article in which one is quoted.

Actually, maybe government shouldn't have a say in marriage at all. Single sex and polygamous mariage should both be legal if all parties to the Contract do so of there own free will. Government's role would be limited to arbitrating disputes as it does for business.

But then Canadians could concentrate on the Corruption of Liberal Ministers, the High Tax Rates, and that our liberties are slowly being eroded.

[Juice]

A queer is a politcally active homosexual. It is a term that the Agitator's use: watch for the next newspaper article in which one is quoted.

Actually, maybe government shouldn't have a say in marriage at all. Single sex and polygamous mariage should both be legal if all parties to the Contract do so of there own free will. Government's role would be limited to arbitrating disputes as it does for business.

But then Canadians could concentrate on the Corruption of Liberal Ministers, the High Tax Rates, and that our liberties are slowly being eroded.
If we take out government influence on marriage, then by that same token we must get rid of government benefits of marriage. It works both ways.

[SLt Merrall]

If we take out government influence on marriage, then by that same token we must get rid of government benefits of marriage. It works both ways.

Agreed. It's a two way street and I much prefer the status quo to the alternative.

[wb256]

As for the term "queer" it is not a label used for agitator homosexuals. It's the process of "taking back a word" that is used in a derogatory fashion. Many oppressed groups tend to do this. Look at african american communities and the use of the "n" word.

[CaptBRC]

Yet BC has fired several Marriage Clerks who would not issue licenses or perform civil marriages for gay couples because it goes against their religious beliefs. Expect the court challenge on that issue next...it's not unlike firing a Doctor because they won't perform an abortion.

Sir -

From what I've learned, they were not fired. They quit because they did not want to perform such marriages. Doing a search on the subject brought me to more links that said they quit, than those that indicated they were fired (25:3).

Respectfully,

[CaptBRC]

This phrase annoys me when referring to GLBT people, and this is just my opinion. First of all, in my talks with friends, I can tell you that I have met no one of a minority sexual orientation who has chosen to be gay. And secondly, I personally wouldn't classify it as a lifestyle - it's a life, period. But again - opinion, nothing more. :rolleyes:

Again - one doesn't CHOOSE to be a homosexual. Just as the same as one doesn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual.

[JGallagher]

I do belive that it was said that no same sex marriges will be done around here. I know alot of the priest in the diocess and I highly dout that they will. As well I think they were on the radio at one point and said it. The goverment still has the issue of the "Man-Women" issue. Cause right now I do belive one must be declared the man and the other the women.

[DA Wright]

Sir -

From what I've learned, they were not fired. They quit because they did not want to perform such marriages. Doing a search on the subject brought me to more links that said they quit, than those that indicated they were fired (25:3).

Respectfully,

Yes, I followed up on that to. The issue is they were informed by supervsiors that, should they refuse to perform a same-sex union, they would be fired, so they quit as a matter of principle. Initial reports in the Globe and Star indicated they were "fired" or "forced to resign".

Either way, it will be interesting to watch which rights get to trump which.

[wb256]

I do belive that it was said that no same sex marriges will be done around here. I know alot of the priest in the diocess and I highly dout that they will. As well I think they were on the radio at one point and said it. The goverment still has the issue of the "Man-Women" issue. Cause right now I do belive one must be declared the man and the other the women.

um...the catholic church dosn't have to perform the marriages...anywhere. Your civil service in your area will take care of that. I don't think you fully grasp this situation.

[N. McKay]

Cause right now I do belive one must be declared the man and the other the women.

What is that supposed to mean?

[JGallagher]

What is that supposed to mean?


I remember in the news already in the past year that there was a argument over some thing. Well the goverment said that one person has to be declared the man and one the women.

[N. McKay]

I remember in the news already in the past year that there was a argument over some thing. Well the goverment said that one person has to be declared the man and one the women.

You'd better do some research into that. Not even the government can declare someone to be a man or woman if he or she isn't already one.

[SLt Merrall]

...the catholic church dosn't have to perform the marriages...

True enough - the new legislation will leave it up to the choice of the church.

[JGallagher]

You'd better do some research into that. Not even the government can declare someone to be a man or woman if he or she isn't already one.


It was said and I dont know the out come of it.

[Wolfmann]

I do belive that it was said that no same sex marriges will be done around here.

They really have no choice. The clergy are probably the only one's that could say no, but a magistrate or justice of peace could not say no.


I know alot of the priest in the diocess and I highly dout that they will.

That's a poor attitude, given that gay or lesbian you are still children before God. But I would respect their right to uphold their religious beliefs...but if they do it out of a hatred or disgust to gays and lesbians than that is bigotry and is discriminatory. And is a Human Rights violation, thus illegal.

It's a poor attitude for a leader of a community to have.


As well I think they were on the radio at one point and said it. The goverment still has the issue of the "Man-Women" issue. Cause right now I do belive one must be declared the man and the other the women.

Laws will change. They have to change. The clergy are not the only one's that can perform marriages.

[Juice]

That's a poor attitude, given that gay or lesbian you are still children before God. But I would respect their right to uphold their religious beliefs...but if they do it out of a hatred or disgust to gays and lesbians than that is bigotry and is discriminatory. And is a Human Rights violation, thus illegal.

It's a poor attitude for a leader of a community to have.
Perhpas, but they also have the right to uphold their beliefs. If they believe that homosexuality is sinful, according to the way they interpret the Bible, you can't force them to recognize it. Hell, often times they dont recognize marriages where the people are from two different religious backgrounds. Like my parents, my mom is protestant and my dad is catholic. Because my mom was protestant, the Catholic church in my home town refused to baptize myself and my two brothers because they did not recognize my parents marriage. If they can get away with that, then they should be able to get away ith not recognizing gay marriages, as it is more against the tenets of Chritiantiy than being married to a different sect of Christianity is. No offense to anyone, but it is true. Not saying I agree with it, but it is true.

[Wolfmann]

Perhpas, but they also have the right to uphold their beliefs. If they believe that homosexuality is sinful, according to the way they interpret the Bible, you can't force them to recognize it. Hell, often times they dont recognize marriages where the people are from two different religious backgrounds.

They have right to do it. But this is the attitude that has led to the majority of every major conflict in human history. 99% of religious preach tolerance, love, and acceptance...but while one hand is patting the hand, what I dislike and abhor is the left hand putting a gun to their head implying, "But we'll only love you if you follow OUR rules."

If I was gay and wanted to get married I'd probably just go to city hall.


Like my parents, my mom is protestant and my dad is catholic. Because my mom was protestant, the Catholic church in my home town refused to baptize myself and my two brothers because they did not recognize my parents marriage.

A letter writing campaign to the local and city papers could probably fix that. ;-) But again, one thing people today seem to not want to hear is "No". Receiving a "No" and dealing with it appropriate is a lost skill.

I would respect the instution's right to deny me, but I doubt I'd ever have anything to do with that instutition ever again. The issue is that we are all worshipping the same God, and applying the same principles...how we go about it is different.

Does it even matter, in the end?


If they can get away with that, then they should be able to get away ith not recognizing gay marriages, as it is more against the tenets of Chritiantiy than being married to a different sect of Christianity is. No offense to anyone, but it is true. Not saying I agree with it, but it is true.

Very true. But it's not up to religion to recognize marriage. It's up to the province. Despite it being a religious institution.

[Juice]

One thing I forgot to add. I am not saying that they should be outright discriminatory towards gays/lesbians, because that's just wrong. However, you cannot force people to compromise their beliefs just because the country is shifting their social opinion. You have to draw a line somewhere.

[Juice]

They have right to do it. But this is the attitude that has led to the majority of every major conflict in human history. 99% of religious preach tolerance, love, and acceptance...but while one hand is patting the hand, what I dislike and abhor is the left hand putting a gun to their head implying, "But we'll only love you if you follow OUR rules."
Well, in any case, if it wasn't religion, it would have been something else.


A letter writing campaign to the local and city papers could probably fix that. ;-) But again, one thing people today seem to not want to hear is "No". Receiving a "No" and dealing with it appropriate is a lost skill.

I would respect the instution's right to deny me, but I doubt I'd ever have anything to do with that instutition ever again. The issue is that we are all worshipping the same God, and applying the same principles...how we go about it is different.
My parents were upset, but decided it just wasn't worth it. They havent been back to church since.

[piper-from-camp]

If I was gay and wanted to get married I'd probably just go to city hall.

Which is exactly what should happen. The church should NOT be forced to marry two people who are gay if they wish not too. Those of us in society who are against gay marriage are already being forced to live with the fact that it will happen...it's not fair to take away the one remaing bastion of scoiety that will stay with the traditional definition of marriage. So I agree with what was said above, city hall is always there and the church should not be forced to conform to these new changes to society.

[Chief Hoult]

Which is exactly what should happen. The church should NOT be forced to marry two people who are gay if they wish not too. Those of us in society who are against gay marriage are already being forced to live with the fact that it will happen...it's not fair to take away the one remaing bastion of scoiety that will stay with the traditional definition of marriage. So I agree with what was said above, city hall is always there and the church should not be forced to conform to these new changes to society.

...is anyone stating that? The supreme courts even agree with that statement.

HOWEVER, some sects of the Christian Church are indeed allowed Gay Marriage (even if it is just the rogue church). It'll divide the church, and yes, there will be Gay, Christian Couples, married in a Christian Church, by a Christian Minister.

Will you refuse to recognize those marriages? Will they not be valid in your eyes? More importantly, how do you think they'll be viewed in the eyes of your God (the same, Christian, God)?

CH

[wb256]

They have right to do it. But this is the attitude that has led to the majority of every major conflict in human history. 99% of religious preach tolerance, love, and acceptance...but while one hand is patting the hand, what I dislike and abhor is the left hand putting a gun to their head implying, "But we'll only love you if you follow OUR rules."


Actually, if you do an indepth study of ethno-religious conflicts and tensions, you'll discover that 99% of them revolve around political/economic inequalities. It's not the differences in religion/language that cause the tension, it's the varying degrees of political control and economic power these different groups have.

[Lola]

Those of us in society who are against gay marriage are already being forced to live with the fact that it will happen.

Oh, boo hoo. :rolleyes: I'm already forced to deal with the fact that some people are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. etc. You'll survive.

[SLt Merrall]

Oh, boo hoo. :rolleyes: I'm already forced to deal with the fact that some people are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. etc. You'll survive.

My feelings exactly. We all have to live with things we don't like. Deal with it and move on.

[Wolfmann]

Those of us in society who are against gay marriage are already being forced to live with the fact that it will happen...not fair to take away the one remaining bastion of scoiety that will stay with the traditional definition of marriage. So I agree with what was said above, city hall is always there and the church should not be forced to conform to these new changes to society.

What exactly threatens you about gay marriage, or gay partners in particular?

[Wolfmann]

Actually, if you do an indepth study of ethno-religious conflicts and tensions, you'll discover that 99% of them revolve around political/economic inequalities. It's not the differences in religion/language that cause the tension, it's the varying degrees of political
control and economic power these different groups have.

These political and economic issues through the majority of history have been created by religious difference. Organized religions are as much about political and economic power as they are spiritual, infact I would argue they are more so.

Even the Roman Empire was eventually destroyed and from the ashes of the Dark Ages rose the Holy Roman Empire, which in itself, began a religious crusade that converted many of it's pagan nation members to Catholicism on pain of death. That is a relative short history, of course. But there are very clear influences of religious belief affecting national policies and conflicts.

But...yes, there have been a lot of conflicts in so called "pagan" states where it was an issue of political and economic control. Many times the real issue is intolerance wrapped within the guise of politics.

[Wolfmann]

Well, in any case, if it wasn't religion, it would have been something else.

It is different, given that many of these religions preach the very things their political administration has shown that over the "years" to be counter to their actions.

Maybe it's not religion, but there is some measure of bias and intolerance. But because it is religion, in my mind, makes it worse.



My parents were upset, but decided it just wasn't worth it. They havent been back to church since.

That's too bad. My cousin is a pastor and he has no real issues with the demographics of his congregation, but there are friends of his that aren't. Maybe not somewhat surprisingly my cousin has a very successful parish, and his friend is having difficulties drawing or keeping members.

Take from that what you want.

[DMCorrigan]

Oh, boo hoo. :rolleyes: I'm already forced to deal with the fact that some people are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. etc. You'll survive.

WELL SAID. I give this post my new post award:

Pwn of the Day :P

[wb256]

These political and economic issues through the majority of history have been created by religious difference. Organized religions are as much about political and economic power as they are spiritual, infact I would argue they are more so.

Even the Roman Empire was eventually destroyed and from the ashes of the Dark Ages rose the Holy Roman Empire, which in itself, began a religious crusade that converted many of it's pagan nation members to Catholicism on pain of death. That is a relative short history, of course. But there are very clear influences of religious belief affecting national policies and conflicts.

But...yes, there have been a lot of conflicts in so called "pagan" states where it was an issue of political and economic control. Many times the real issue is intolerance wrapped within the guise of politics.

The Holy Roman Empire can hardly be thought of as a successor to the Roman Empire. It can hardly be thought of as holy either, or Roman...or even an empire for that matter by the time is dissolved;)

The fact that religious institutions are more concerned with power and wealth proves my point. None of these conflicts had anything to do with differences in belief, they were the product of people attempt to gain wealth and p[ower (forcing people to adopt your faith, a faith that you control, helps you to control them).

The religious differences themselves haven't served to motivate any conflict. Power-hungry religious leaders, however, routinely aggitate populations based upon these differences, to help inspire people to fight for their "sacred cause" (read: quest for money).

[Wolfmann]

The Holy Roman Empire can hardly be thought of as a successor to the Roman Empire. It can hardly be thought of as holy either, or Roman...or even an empire for that matter by the time is dissolved;)

It formed the basis of the Catholic Church, and it's basis was religion. And it was the successor to the Roman Empire. Obviously not in such grand scope, as the Roman Empire very quickly dissolved itself and it's boundaries, but it rose out of the Dark Ages as a very powerful force.



The fact that religious institutions are more concerned with power and wealth proves my point. None of these conflicts had anything to do with differences in belief, they were the product of people attempt to gain wealth and p[ower (forcing people to adopt your faith, a faith that you control, helps you to control them).

The religious differences themselves haven't served to motivate any conflict. Power-hungry religious leaders, however, routinely aggitate populations based upon these differences, to help inspire people to fight for their "sacred cause" (read: quest for money).

Maybe this is a revolving debate. Religion is about politics and economics, as much as it is about faith. And there have been more wars in the name of God, than in the name of Politics.

[Juice]

Maybe this is a revolving debate. Religion is about politics and economics, as much as it is about faith. And there have been more wars in the name of God, than in the name of Politics.
I dont know about that. There have been many wars over political./territorial gains. And even most wars that are over religion are only seemingly like that on the surface. There is usually an underlying factor, politics or whatever that motivates it. Religion is just used to motiovate everyone else to fight.

Wars of Spanish/Austrian Succession, 7 Years' War, American Revolution, French Revolution,War of 1812, WWI and II, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, and teh list goes on. Those were more about political/ideological/territorial/whatever gains than religion.

[wb256]

Religion is always given as an excuse, and used to rally the support of the masses. However, the key value that causes the leaders to fall into conflict has, 99% of the time, been economic and political moreso than anything else.

Also, if you look at situations where ethnic tensions exist and result in high levels of violence (former yugoslavia, rwanda, post ww1 germany) you can always find an economic/political root for these issues. Even in the debate of english vs french canada, a political root can be found.

Ethnic/religious tensions always invlove a feeling of "victimization" on account of one group. Even in the present context of Islamic terrorism, a political root can be found for the percieved necessity to rid the arabian peninsula of infidels. This would be the crusades and the status the arab world played within the european colonial empires. Al Quada recruitment today still plays upon these historical sorespots.

[Wolfmann]

Religion is always given as an excuse, and used to rally the support of the masses. However, the key value that causes the leaders to fall into conflict has, 99% of the time, been economic and political moreso than anything else.

I think that's the issue. What the real core issues is sometimes not at the forefront...ie...the motivations may not be religious, but religion allows it to be wrapped in a very palatable form. Appealing to people's ignorance and intolerance.




Also, if you look at situations where ethnic tensions exist and result in high levels of violence (former yugoslavia, rwanda, post ww1 germany) you can always find an economic/political root for these issues. Even in the debate of english vs french canada, a political root can be found.

That's a good point. But even the English vs. French debate was still twisted as Protestant vs. Catholic. The politics of the situation stem from a struggle within history...there would be no debate today if Mont Calm had won on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec. Or had Wolfe's successor (he and Mont Calm were killed in the battle) sent all the French packing. That's the political side of it, but the discord between the two always seemed to be the motivation of their religious beliefs... "Oh those filthy, pagan Protestants."...etc.

Yugoslavia was very much about Islam vs. Christianity...now was it a motivator, or an excuse for genocide?

I don't think it matters.

The Cold War was largely geo-political, but we were leveraged to believe those "Godless Communists" were the bane of all. Even in WWII, Germany was largely stratified by Protestant and Catholicism and religious freedoms were not encouraged. In the end, the Allied soldiers on the battle field were motivated through faith in knowing their enemy was largely "Godless" - I don't think that is necessarily true, but the German intolerance to religious views is quite well documented.

Religion is used as a lever of justification to exploit people's ignorance and intolerance.


Ethnic/religious tensions always invlove a feeling of "victimization" on account of one group. Even in the present context of Islamic terrorism, a political root can be found for the percieved necessity to rid the arabian peninsula of infidels. This would be the crusades and the status the arab world played within the european colonial empires. Al Quada recruitment today still plays upon these historical sorespots.

The victimization appeal is a good point. But I believe the core fundamental of the political issue is still religious. Otherwise you would not call them "Islamic Fundamentalists". In the crusades the fundamentalists were Christians...trying to impose themselves upon the muslims. The Muslim's were just trying to defend their homeland, it's resources and knowledge. An entire crusade of war based upon the pretext of Religious intolerance, which stemmed from an economic need to exploit the resources of the area.

Religion, politics, and economics have all been horribly intertwined.

[Preece]

look at this--> is this what Canada has to worry about most? I think that Homosexuals should have a different type of marriage, it might be segregation but I think that marriage is between and man and a women.

^but this is just my opinion^


love has no rules
marriage between 2 people who love each other of the same sex shouldnt either.

and how can they have a "different type of marriage"? either way they are still getting married!!!!!!


*this stuff down here isnt answering to your quote, its just something im adding to the thread*


here are some quotes i found on the net...think about what they are saying:


"Each individual's journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships - maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation." -From the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa.


"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." -The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.




now really...i think that this subject is no big deal at all...i honestly think that the whole same sex marriage court thing is just another thing the government is doing to get attention and get paid....

[Juice]

love has no rules
marriage between 2 people who love each other of the same sex shouldnt either.
Love does have rules. It's just blind.
now really...i think that this subject is no big deal at all...i honestly think that the whole same sex marriage court thing is just another thing the government is doing to get attention and get paid....
Ummm...not really. This is something that NEEDS to be discussed in the governemt, and it is a HUGE deal. Go and tell gays and lesbians that the whole gay marriage issue is only around so that the government gets attention and gets paid more. See what kind of a reaction you get.

This is about equality. People can throw that "Civil Union" crap around like it gives the best of both worlds, when it doesn't. Attempting to give off a title like that only perpetuates the intolerance that exists, it doesn't solve it.

[Preece]

Love does have rules. It's just blind.

Ummm...not really. This is something that NEEDS to be discussed in the governemt, and it is a HUGE deal. Go and tell gays and lesbians that the whole gay marriage issue is only around so that the government gets attention and gets paid more. See what kind of a reaction you get.


NO! I didnt mean that!!! I meant that the government shouldnt CARE who gets married to who!!! NO its NOT a huge deal. Nobody should be told how to spend their lives. Bringing this to court is friggen ridiculous. Obviously its there to get attention for the government and for them to get paid. If they didnt care so much about the same-sex getting married then this wouldnt be in court.

Gays and Lesbians shouldnt have to protest their rights. Thats what i was trying to say. Dont turn my post around to make it look like im a fool, im getting sick of it.

[Preece]

What exactly threatens you about gay marriage, or gay partners in particular?


haha i just noticed that nobody answered that question. LoL you make sense!! Im waiting to see what someone has to say about that. :p

[Juice]

NO! I didnt mean that!!! I meant that the government shouldnt CARE who gets married to who!!! NO its NOT a huge deal. Nobody should be told how to spend their lives. Bringing this to court is friggen ridiculous. Obviously its there to get attention for the government and for them to get paid. If they didnt care so much about the same-sex getting married then this wouldnt be in court.

Gays and Lesbians shouldnt have to protest their rights. Thats what i was trying to say. Dont turn my post around to make it look like im a fool, im getting sick of it.
True, they shouldnt, but you have to understand that this whole issue is trying to undo CENTURIES of oppression. It's not gonna happen overnight, and yes, it NEEDS to be discussed in the government because marriage is a government regulated institution. For gays to be allowed to married, it must go through the government. It's not all black and white, there are valid points for both sides of the argument (as much as people only like to see things from the one perspective), and while I (and many others) feel that those who are against gay marriages should get out of the way of progress, it's not that simple. This will take time, and is a VERY big deal.

And for the record, I'm not trying to make you sound like a fool. If you want to think that I am go ahead.

[Preece]

True, they shouldnt, but you have to understand that this whole issue is trying to undo CENTURIES of oppression. It's not gonna happen overnight, and yes, it NEEDS to be discussed in the government because marriage is a government regulated institution. For gays to be allowed to married, it must go through the government. It's not all black and white, there are valid points for both sides of the argument (as much as people only like to see things from the one perspective), and while I (and many others) feel that those who are against gay marriages should get out of the way of progress, it's not that simple. This will take time, and is a VERY big deal.

im just saying it shouldnt be. And if it had to go through the government they should just allow it, its not killing anyone! Did it go to court about opposite sex marriages? no...was it because the bible said it was ok? probably. It also says in the bible somewhere that "God" accepts people for who they are. Sounds like it huh? Besides, who really knows what "God" wants? Nobody has ever talked to...it...or..whatever... but im just saying how ridiculous it is to make this so dramatic. If they had just said yes then this would never have happened. What are they afraid of? Change? Well guess what people...change is happening all over the world, time to get over it and just let it happen



And for the record, I'm not trying to make you sound like a fool. If you want to think that I am go ahead.

well you seem to have that effect on people...so i guess i will...thanks

[Juice]

im just saying it shouldnt be. And if it had to go through the government they should just allow it, its not killing anyone!
You're exactly right, it's not. However, there is more to it than just a simple yes or no. We're talking about changing a definition that has been held for CENTURIES. There are more people who are against gay marriage than you might think, and at the end of the day, the government has to be there for ALL the people. This is why it takes so long to make a HUGE change like this. The government has to take into account ALL the opinions on the issue. You can't just tell people who are against it to suck it up and deal with it, nor can you just make a huge change overnight.

Did it go to court about opposite sex marriages? no...was it because the bible said it was ok? probably. It also says in the bible somewhere that "God" accepts people for who they are. Sounds like it huh? Besides, who really knows what "God" wants? Nobody has ever talked to...it...or..whatever... but im just saying how ridiculous it is to make this so dramatic.
Yep, God accepts everyone. God has been taken out of politics and almost every aspect of society, so using that kind of argument to support gay marriage is just as bad as those who use it to go against it.
If they had just said yes then this would never have happened. What are they afraid of? Change? Well guess what people...change is happening all over the world, time to get over it and just let it happen
Change is scary. Especially when we have lived with one mentality for so long. I say go for it, and bring on the change, because chances are it wont hurt anyone, but there are people who are scared of huge changes like this. And the government has to take those opinions into account too.

[Preece]

We're talking about changing a definition that has been held for CENTURIES. There are more people who are against gay marriage than you might think, and at the end of the day, the government has to be there for ALL the people.

a definition? thats a reason this is happening? BAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Yah they are against it, i know that, but if the government had just said yes....then they would eventually learn to live with it. Its just really pathetic how people can have the heart to not let two people in love be together for the rest of their lives.



Change is scary. Especially when we have lived with one mentality for so long. I say go for it, and bring on the change, because chances are it wont hurt anyone, but there are people who are scared of huge changes like this. And the government has to take those opinions into account too.

they can be scared of change but everyone is scared of something and they learn to live with it. Like me, im scared of tight spaces, so i dont go in tight spaces. If people dont like homosexuals they can just carry on with their day.


What did gay/lesbian people ever do to them?? Hit on them? Oh no! Its the end of the world! Well guess what, they have hormones too, and straight people hit on straight people..but thats not a big deal now is it? I bet so many people have hit on gay/lesbian people and didnt even know they were homosexual. (Not all gay guys have high voices, or are cheerleaders, and not all lesbians are tom boys...so please...no stereotyping here.) They dont tell straights how to live their life, i dont think straights should tell them how to live theirs and the fact that this issue is being taken into courts is just ridiculous. And its not like all gay/lesbian people can help the way they are. Most were born like that.


all i was trying to say was that its pathetic how this is being taken care of

[Juice]

a definition? thats a reason this is happening? BAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
That's part of it. The whole idea is chaging the legal definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. It's a very big deal, and I don't think it's a laughing matter at all.

Yah they are against it, i know that, but if the government had just said yes....then they would eventually learn to live with it. Its just really pathetic how people can have the heart to not let two people in love be together for the rest of their lives.
I suppose you could make the argument that gays and lesbians would learn to live with it to if the government just said no. Works both ways.

NOTE: That's not my opinion, just showing another side to your statement.


they can be scared of change but everyone is scared of something and they learn to live with it.
If only it were that easy, the world would be a much better place. It's alot more than a matter of "livign with it." There are more people than you think that don't want to "live with it." The government can't just ignore that voice of the population and tell them to suck it up. There are enough people in the government that think that way, and that is part of the reason that this is taking so long.

What did gay/lesbian people ever do to them?? Hit on them? Oh no! Its the end of the world! Well guess what, they have hormones too, and straight people hit on straight people..but thats not a big deal now is it? I bet so many people have hit on gay/lesbian people and didnt even know they were homosexual. (Not all gay guys have high voices, or are cheerleaders, and not all lesbians are tom boys...so please...no stereotyping here.) They dont tell straight how to live their life, i dont think straights should tell them how to live theirs and the fact that this issue is being taken into courts is just ridiculous. And its not like all gay/lesbian people can help the way they are. Most were born like that.
It has nothing to do with gays/lesbians hitting on people. That has nothing to do with gay marriage at all. Yes, there are stereotypes out there. You can't just expect to change the way part of a society thinks overnight. It takes time to change the stereotypes that have been engrained in people's minds ove hundreds of years.

Like I said, the fact that marriage is a government institution is the very reason that this has gone to the courts and parliament. Can you not see that?

You seem to have this picture perfect view of this issue, like you tell people to change their ways of thinking and it automatically happens. Certainly not the case. This ais a very contentious issue, as much as you dont like to see it. There's more to it than just saying "yes." As much as I would love it to be like that, its not.

[Preece]

That's part of it. The whole idea is chaging the legal definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. It's a very big deal, and I don't think it's a laughing matter at all.

well i think it shoulda been included when they made the "legal definition" in the first place. i know your going to tell me "oh its not that easy" i understand that, im just letting you know how i feel. (whether you care or not)


I suppose you could make the argument that gays and lesbians would learn to live with it to if the government just said no. Works both ways.

NOTE: That's not my opinion, just showing another side to your statement..

i know it works both ways but having two people of the same sex married doesnt concern anyone else but them. I call it nosey. (but remember..this is MY opinion)


If only it were that easy, the world would be a much better place. It's alot more than a matter of "livign with it." There are more people than you think that don't want to "live with it." The government can't just ignore that voice of the population and tell them to suck it up. There are enough people in the government that think that way, and that is part of the reason that this is taking so long..


i know they dont want to ignore it but they also have to think of the way homosexuals feel. I mean, they are getting rejected from being married! I'd like to see how everyone would feel if heterosexuals werent allowed to get married just because some people didnt approve of it. Thats whats happening with gays. Because some people dont approve of it then it should be taken into the courts. Well some people dont approve of heterosexual marriage either, and its not a big deal to them is it now?



You seem to have this picture perfect view of this issue, like you tell people to change their ways of thinking and it automatically happens. Certainly not the case. This ais a very contentious issue, as much as you dont like to see it. There's more to it than just saying "yes." As much as I would love it to be like that, its not.


i dont have it picture perfect, i was simply giving my opinion.

[Juice]

well i think it shoulda been included when they made the "legal definition" in the first place. i know your going to tell me "oh its not that easy" i understand that, im just letting you know how i feel. (whether you care or not)
You have ot understand that when this definition was made, society was a lot more oppressive, and homosexuality wasn't legal, let alone women voting, blacks being people, etc, etc.
i know it works both ways but having two people of the same sex married doesnt concern anyone else but them. I call it nosey. (but remember..this is MY opinion)
And I agree with you. But it just isn't that simple. Oh how wonderful life would be if it were.
i know they dont want to ignore it but they also have to think of the way homosexuals feel. I mean, they are getting rejected from being married! I'd like to see how everyone would feel if heterosexuals werent allowed to get married just because some people didnt approve of it. Thats whats happening with gays. Because some people dont approve of it then it should be taken into the courts. Well some people dont approve of heterosexual marriage either, and its not a big deal to them is it now?
Yeah, that is what is happening, and had things been the other way around, then heterosexuals would be here making the same argument as gays are now.

[Preece]

You have ot understand that when this definition was made, society was a lot more oppressive, and homosexuality wasn't legal, let alone women voting, blacks being people, etc, etc.

And I agree with you. But it just isn't that simple. Oh how wonderful life would be if it were.

Yeah, that is what is happening, and had things been the other way around, then heterosexuals would be here making the same argument as gays are now.



how bout we just do this over msn.

[Wolfmann]

how bout we just do this over msn.

Don't run away! This is fun...keep it here. :D

[Murrdawg]

Why does everyone have to bug the gay people. I say to just leave them alone and let them do what they want. I'm not for it nor against it. Yes, I've seen both sides, but really, if the Catholic church wants to define marriage, then those in the religion with polygamy can define it too according to their religion

[wb256]

Don't run away! This is fun...keep it here. :D


It's not fun to watch 2 people bicker over one point...or have 2-3 people argue with no one else contributing.

If it does degrade down to this, msn and/or pm's are definatly a good place to take things :)

[Wolfmann]

It's not fun to watch 2 people bicker over one point...or have 2-3 people argue with no one else contributing.

If it does degrade down to this, msn and/or pm's are definatly a good place to take things :)

I was being facetious. Maybe if they put relevant points and proof behind their beliefs they would have a debate...not an argument. :D

[SLt Merrall]

Maybe if they put relevant points and proof behind their beliefs they would have a debate...not an argument. :D

Second! :)

[Juice]

Why does everyone have to bug the gay people. I say to just leave them alone and let them do what they want. I'm not for it nor against it. Yes, I've seen both sides, but really, if the Catholic church wants to define marriage, then those in the religion with polygamy can define it too according to their religion
OMG! He said the "P" word! I thought one contentious subject per thread was enough! :p

[piper-from-camp]

What exactly threatens you about gay marriage, or gay partners in particular?

It does not threaten me, I just don't like it. I don't like homosexuality, I think it's disgusting and immoral. I don't like gay marriages, I think thats just plain wrong. However, those are my opinions and if your gay and want to do your thing, go ahead, just don't look to me for support. I won't stop you, but I won't encourage it either. I know one or two girls who are bisexual, I don't like it, but they are still my friends (they were before they went that way) and I just ignore it. Whatever floats your boat, I just don't like it. No one here has been challenged to jusify why they support gay marriage, I see no reason for me to support my position. I simply don't like it, it goes against my moral fibre and my values. But hey, don't let that stop them.

[Preece]

It does not threaten me, I just don't like it. I don't like homosexuality, I think it's disgusting and immoral. I don't like gay marriages, I think thats just plain wrong. However, those are my opinions and if your gay and want to do your thing, go ahead, just don't look to me for support. I won't stop you, but I won't encourage it either. I know one or two girls who are bisexual, I don't like it, but they are still my friends (they were before they went that way) and I just ignore it. Whatever floats your boat, I just don't like it. No one here has been challenged to jusify why they support gay marriage, I see no reason for me to support my position. I simply don't like it, it goes against my moral fibre and my values. But hey, don't let that stop them.


k because it wont :rolleyes:

[piper-from-camp]

k because it wont :rolleyes:

The reactions you get on this site when you post anything remotely anti-gay or anything else that smacks of right-wing rhetoric could make you think otherwise.

[wb256]

The reactions you get on this site when you post anything remotely anti-gay or anything else that smacks of right-wing rhetoric could make you think otherwise.


That's probably because freedom of sexuality is protected by the constitution. Anti-gay is therefore anti-constitutional. It's a morality that many canadians feel very strongly about, so you're going to have to expect a lot of backlash. Welcome to Canada, the majority of it's citizens are laid back and accepting people. You're one of the people I see most complaining about people coming here and not respecting our society's culture. Well you know what, anti-gay statements are a HUGE disrespect to the culture of tolerance which basically dominates Canadian society.

Furthermore, it's not the fact that your opinions are right wing, but the fact that you express them in a derogatory and insensitive manner that causes the backlash that it does. Try looking up tact, polite and sensitive in the dictionary. If you'd be slightly less rude, arrogant and judgemental in your posts, MAYBE people would take your opinions a bit more seriously.

[Svejk]

Freedom of Sexuality is not in the Charter of Rights or in the Constitution. Paedophiles and Necrophiliacs etc goto jail if tried and convicted.

Piper-from camp: these new laws are a threat to you. More specifrically your pocket book as these now legally married couples will get the Benefits of being married with a license. People do have the Right to do what is disgusting if they both consent and it doesn't harm you.

As for public support: most of Canada wants lower taxes and capital punishment. Do we have them? Not that the Masses are correct just because they say so.

[piper-from-camp]

That's probably because freedom of sexuality is protected by the constitution. Anti-gay is therefore anti-constitutional. It's a morality that many canadians feel very strongly about, so you're going to have to expect a lot of backlash. Welcome to Canada, the majority of it's citizens are laid back and accepting people. You're one of the people I see most complaining about people coming here and not respecting our society's culture. Well you know what, anti-gay statements are a HUGE disrespect to the culture of tolerance which basically dominates Canadian society.

Furthermore, it's not the fact that your opinions are right wing, but the fact that you express them in a derogatory and insensitive manner that causes the backlash that it does. Try looking up tact, polite and sensitive in the dictionary. If you'd be slightly less rude, arrogant and judgemental in your posts, MAYBE people would take your opinions a bit more seriously.

Svejk got to it before I did. Why should gays be allowed freedom of sexuality (something that does not exist) if people who like little boys or maybye their sisters are not allowed to practice that freedom of sexuality?

[wb256]

Because there's issues involving "consent" and "adult" and "hurting people". Homosexuality is a victimless crime, whereas pehophelia has clear victims, as well as incest and necrophelia.

Also, I apologize, it's not protected by the charter (it's been a while since I've reviewed it). However, the majority of canadians are tolerant of homosexuality. I'm not saying you have to conform, merely explaining the response that you get.

If you go and make insensitive comments to people, when you KNOW their opinion is opposite yours, you're going to have to expect them to get upset. I wouldn't go to a pro-free trade ralley, make a bunch of insensitive jokes about bush being a moron, and then get upset that people got mad at me.

The majority of canadians are liberal (not liberal party supporters, but believers in the liberal ideology) and tolerant to homosexuality. If you want to get your views heard MAYBE you should at least try to show some respect for other people's beliefs.

I don't let people make pointless posts about how george bush is stupid, just like I won't let you make pointless posts about how homosexuals are "disgusting". It dosn't add to any discussion, it just serves to hurt people and cause fights.

[Ching]

As for public support: most of Canada wants lower taxes and capital punishment. Do we have them? Not that the Masses are correct just because they say so.
Where do you get that "most of Canada" wants capital punishment? I don't personally know anyone who supports the idea. Now, I don't know the majority of the population personally, but I think that I know a pretty good cross-section of the demographic to believe that statement to be bull.

[N. McKay]

Freedom of Sexuality is not in the Charter of Rights or in the Constitution. Paedophiles and Necrophiliacs etc goto jail if tried and convicted.

That's because those things are illegal. Being gay isn't.

Piper-from camp: these new laws are a threat to you. More specifrically your pocket book as these now legally married couples will get the Benefits of being married with a license.

Do you have a reasonable estimate of what that will cost the average taxpayer per year? Awfully close to nothing, I would imagine.

As for public support: most of Canada wants lower taxes and capital punishment. Do we have them? Not that the Masses are correct just because they say so.

Have you got a source for that, or are you just being creative?

[Loyal Edmonton]

I don't personally know anyone who supports the idea.

but I think that I know a pretty good cross-section of the demographic to believe that statement to be bull.

You do know someone who does support it, and i agree that the majority DO NOT support the idea.

[Insane Power Pilot]

I would much rather the government made a clear stand on this and just said yes or no right away and just moved on to more important things. That's right, I consider this whole debate to be quite unimportant! Homosexuality has already become a huge part of our culture, it seems today that you can't go through all your TV channels without finding some show with a gay theme (Will & Grace, Queer Eye, Queer as folk, etc.) So I also contest the notion that this will bring about HUGE change. I have an Aunt who has been living with the same guy common-law for 15 years. If they got married tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing. At least for me it wouldn't, and it probably wouldn't mean much to them either since they've spent so much time together already.

Also, I think seeing two guys making out in public is absolutely DISGUSTING. I think two girls making out in public is deplorable! But I think the same about a guy and a girl, making out in public. Just too add to an earlier point. ;)

[Murrdawg]

The main argument is changing the definition put down by religion. I'm not for it or against it, but leave the people alone.

[Loyal Edmonton]

The main argument is changing the definition put down by religion. I'm not for it or against it, but leave the people alone.


Which brings us to the separation of church and state..... have fun

[AMothfromWpg]

What I find very interesting (besides the notion of church and state separation) is how there hasn't been much notice (or comments) about the new CF policy for its padres. This really makes me think that the government is already changing its view as the military doesn't do anything on its own. It's guided and directed by gov't policies.

[Chief Hoult]

What's the change for Padres?

CH

[SLt Merrall]

That's probably because freedom of sexuality is protected by the constitution. Anti-gay is therefore anti-constitutional.

Yes and no. Freedom of sexuality is not a Charter Freedom. There is no clause in any of the 33 (?) sections which protects sexuality as a freedom.

However, a Supreme Court ruling (Egan v. Canada 1995) read sexual orientation into the Charter. Of course, the Charter could not be actually amended, but Constitutional Amendment is a completely seperate topic, isn't it?

The Court ruled that "sexual orientation is an analogous ground of discrimination under the open-ended list of grounds of discrimination in section 15 of the Charter." (Smith, 92)

Furthermore, it's not the fact that your opinions are right wing, but the fact that you express them in a derogatory and insensitive manner that causes the backlash that it does. Try looking up tact, polite and sensitive in the dictionary. If you'd be slightly less rude, arrogant and judgemental in your posts, MAYBE people would take your opinions a bit more seriously.

Indeed. You have every right to express your opinions (back to the Charter we go). The problem is when you express them in a manner which could be hurtful to others.

And just FYI:

Smith, Mariam. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality Seeking, 1971 – 1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

[Lt(N) DesJardins]

What's the change for Padres?

CH

The link explains.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1106181280527_52

[Lt(N) DesJardins]

The reactions you get on this site when you post anything remotely anti-gay or anything else that smacks of right-wing rhetoric could make you think otherwise.

Currently, there are some people who are commenting in a manner that could be viewed as "pro-gay." This may not be the case. The truth is, from what I can tell, many people are replying to a few irrational, unsupported or just out to lunch comments. Regardless of their views, they are trying to shed light on some false or not entirely correct information.

[SLt Merrall]

Currently, there are some people who are commenting in a manner that could be viewed as "pro-gay." This may not be the case. The truth is, from what I can tell, many people are replying to a few irrational, unsupported or just out to lunch comments. Regardless of their views, they are trying to shed light on some false or not entirely correct information.

Hahah indeed. Others just find it fun to argue. :D

[Juice]

Hahah indeed. Others just find it fun to argue. :D
Debate is the essence of life :p ......ok, maybe not...quite fun though :)

[Boosey]

It does not threaten me, I just don't like it. I don't like homosexuality, I think it's disgusting and immoral. I don't like gay marriages, I think thats just plain wrong. However, those are my opinions and if your gay and want to do your thing, go ahead, just don't look to me for support. I won't stop you, but I won't encourage it either. I know one or two girls who are bisexual, I don't like it, but they are still my friends (they were before they went that way) and I just ignore it. Whatever floats your boat, I just don't like it. No one here has been challenged to jusify why they support gay marriage, I see no reason for me to support my position. I simply don't like it, it goes against my moral fibre and my values. But hey, don't let that stop them.

I'm glad you have the courage to post your stance. Not many people would have done that. I may not agree with your position, but thats what makes society unique: differing opinions!

[Tinkkerbelle]

Debate is the essence of life :p ......ok, maybe not...quite fun though :)


I agree. Debating is crucial to life... and fun, too! (When done logically and intelligently.)

[Boosey]

But getting back on topic, I find it amusing the way that some MP's are planning on voting on the proposed legislation. I sent an email to my local MP (Conservative Party) asking how she intends to vote, and her secretary sent me a response back saying that she was planning on sending a questionnaire to everyone in the riding on their views on same-sex marriage. To this day I have not received a questionnaire, nor has anyone I have talked to. I fully expect that she will vote against the legislation, despite the outcome of the questionnaire. However, I find it interesting to note that her son is gay and a gay rights activist. Its amazing that she is planning on voting against everything her son stands for. I also respect that family life should not influence the "wishes" of constituents, but in Kamloops, the majority of people DO support same sex marriage.

Also interesting to point out is the fact that most people interviewed on tv and in the newspapers are over the age of 55. ***This is my own rant and opinion, read on at own risk*** Why do they care if two men or two women get to marry. it doesn't affect them at all, not even indirectly. They aren't going to be around forever, and so what if society has progressed to this point. I know gay and lesbian parents who are far better parents that some heterosexual ones. They raise their children in the same way that anyone else does. Some "older" people don't know how to stay out of other people's business.

I hope that my MP and other MP's realise that this is the 21st century and that by not allowing same sex marriage, they will be welding Canada to the archaic ways of the past and preventing our great nation from being a leader in social justice.

[piper-from-camp]

But getting back on topic, I find it amusing the way that some MP's are planning on voting on the proposed legislation. I sent an email to my local MP (Conservative Party) asking how she intends to vote, and her secretary sent me a response back saying that she was planning on sending a questionnaire to everyone in the riding on their views on same-sex marriage. To this day I have not received a questionnaire, nor has anyone I have talked to. I fully expect that she will vote against the legislation, despite the outcome of the questionnaire. However, I find it interesting to note that her son is gay and a gay rights activist. Its amazing that she is planning on voting against everything her son stands for. I also respect that family life should not influence the "wishes" of constituents, but in Kamloops, the majority of people DO support same sex marriage.

Also interesting to point out is the fact that most people interviewed on tv and in the newspapers are over the age of 55. ***This is my own rant and opinion, read on at own risk*** Why do they care if two men or two women get to marry. it doesn't affect them at all, not even indirectly. They aren't going to be around forever, and so what if society has progressed to this point. I know gay and lesbian parents who are far better parents that some heterosexual ones. They raise their children in the same way that anyone else does. Some "older" people don't know how to stay out of other people's business.

I hope that my MP and other MP's realise that this is the 21st century and that by not allowing same sex marriage, they will be welding Canada to the archaic ways of the past and preventing our great nation from being a leader in social justice.

Just a question to your comment of gay parents, would you not agree that the social stigma that would be attached to those kids throughout their schooling (yes, being called a 'fag' or a 'homo' is still an insult in our school system) would be to much? Same as to why you will see very few gay marriages through the CF, stigma. Governments can legalise gay marriage all they want, but there are still huge prejudices in certain areas of society that attach a negative stigma to homosexuals and which will prevent certain things from happening. I once knew a girl (way back in grade 8) who's dad divroced his wife for a male partner, and she tried rather hard to keep that fact a secret and when some people did find out she often ahd to defend herself and her father because he was gay. I would say that for the forseeable future, if a gay couple wishes the best for their children, they would not have them simply because these days no kid wants to grow up as the guy who had 'homos' for parents. Just food for thought.

[Lt(N) DesJardins]

I would not say that voting down the marriage bill will make Canada archaic seeing that the vast majority of countries currently hold no such law. Nonetheless, I see your point.

The truth is, the debate of gay marriage is primarily based on emotions. I find it difficult to read opinions that I disagree with, without thinking emotionally as apposed to rationally. The media can easily edit their interviews to convey a certain message that better suits their ratings. *Not that our media would do that*.

I encourage you to continue to call your MP and question her on what she intends to do. We must make our MPs accountable. My MP is Peter MacKay, well I voted from my home riding and I am continuously contacting him for his opinions, plans, etc. Mind you since he was appointed D/Leader of the Conservative Party he takes longer to reply.

On a side note, BZ to piper-from-camp for stating your opinion, regardless of its side. There ware a few things you said that caused me to cringe, nevertheless, I get your general message.

[piper-from-camp]

On a side note, BZ to piper-from-camp for stating your opinion, regardless of its side. There ware a few things you said that caused me to cringe, nevertheless, I get your general message.

Well thanky. Keep in mind, my mere prescence makes people cringe, just ask our benvolent moderator.

[wb256]

dude, your presence is fine, and so was the last post you made...you brought up a lot of good points.

At times you have a tendancy to post things in a rather derogatory and offensive way. I personally think it's funny (if you knew me in real life...and have heard any of my jokes, you'd understand). However CW represents the cadet movement, particularly the CCM...not a place to be "rough around the edges" and loud mouthed with your opinions. Professionalism and politeness :p

[Boosey]

Just a question to your comment of gay parents, would you not agree that the social stigma that would be attached to those kids throughout their schooling (yes, being called a 'fag' or a 'homo' is still an insult in our school system) would be to much? Same as to why you will see very few gay marriages through the CF, stigma. Governments can legalise gay marriage all they want, but there are still huge prejudices in certain areas of society that attach a negative stigma to homosexuals and which will prevent certain things from happening. I once knew a girl (way back in grade 8) who's dad divroced his wife for a male partner, and she tried rather hard to keep that fact a secret and when some people did find out she often ahd to defend herself and her father because he was gay. I would say that for the forseeable future, if a gay couple wishes the best for their children, they would not have them simply because these days no kid wants to grow up as the guy who had 'homos' for parents. Just food for thought.

I totally agree that there will always be the schoolyard name calling and harassing, I had to put up with it and so does 90% of those who come out in high school, but that is not as a result of gay marriage. That is because some kids are taught that it is okay to call people fags and dykes. Its not the gay community that is spurring the harassment, its a minute portion of small minded hetero people. How would it sound if I went around calling people "You stupid 'Hetro'!" I'd look pretty silly. But I don't because my parents (who are heterosexual) raised me to be polite and tolerant, and to respect others for who they are.

And what's wrong with "homo" parents? Absolutely nothing!

[SLt Merrall]

Just a question to your comment of gay parents, would you not agree that the social stigma that would be attached to those kids throughout their schooling (yes, being called a 'fag' or a 'homo' is still an insult in our school system) would be to much? Same as to why you will see very few gay marriages through the CF, stigma. Governments can legalise gay marriage all they want, but there are still huge prejudices in certain areas of society that attach a negative stigma to homosexuals and which will prevent certain things from happening. I once knew a girl (way back in grade 8) who's dad divroced his wife for a male partner, and she tried rather hard to keep that fact a secret and when some people did find out she often ahd to defend herself and her father because he was gay. I would say that for the forseeable future, if a gay couple wishes the best for their children, they would not have them simply because these days no kid wants to grow up as the guy who had 'homos' for parents. Just food for thought.

Umm....hmmm this is interesting.

OK, so a gay couple shouldn't have a kid because they don't want them to be given a hard time at school. But then a heterosexual black couple doesn't have a child because they don't want him or her to be put through racism. Or maybe a heterosexual couple refrains from reproducing to avoid their child being called fat or dumb.

Come on.

Bullies are a fact of life, just as homosexuality is. People will tease children with homosexual parents - it's sad but true. The people who would do that need to grow up and deal with it.

[Juice]

Umm....hmmm this is interesting.

OK, so a gay couple shouldn't have a kid because they don't want them to be given a hard time at school. But then a heterosexual black couple doesn't have a child because they don't want him or her to be put through racism. Or maybe a heterosexual couple refrains from reproducing to avoid their child being called fat or dumb.

Come on.

Bullies are a fact of life, just as homosexuality is. People will tease children with homosexual parents - it's sad but true. The people who would do that need to grow up and deal with it.
That's true. Bullying will always exist in one form or another. I dont see the difference between being made fun of for being gay and being made fun of for being fat, or dumb. It's still bullying. You can't use that argument to justify gays not being allowed to get married or have children under their care.

[piper-from-camp]

dude, your presence is fine, and so was the last post you made...you brought up a lot of good points.

At times you have a tendancy to post things in a rather derogatory and offensive way. I personally think it's funny (if you knew me in real life...and have heard any of my jokes, you'd understand). However CW represents the cadet movement, particularly the CCM...not a place to be "rough around the edges" and loud mouthed with your opinions. Professionalism and politeness :p

Me, offensive? How could you? Come on, web sites like these need people like me to keep it interesting, can't have a bunch of nice people dancing around the issue to keep it politically correct, thats no fun. ;)

OK, so a gay couple shouldn't have a kid because they don't want them to be given a hard time at school. But then a heterosexual black couple doesn't have a child because they don't want him or her to be put through racism. Or maybe a heterosexual couple refrains from reproducing to avoid their child being called fat or dumb.

I'm not saying that gays should not have kids, nor am I saying that they should (take your guess on my view on this, be my guest). It was just a thought to provoke some new discussion.

[wb256]

Me, offensive? How could you? Come on, web sites like these need people like me to keep it interesting, can't have a bunch of nice people dancing around the issue to keep it politically correct, thats no fun. ;)



Less fun, perhaps. And if this wasn't connected to the organization it is, I'd agree. However, this is cadets, and you have to make a good appearance.

[Svejk]

Why do they care if two men or two women get to marry. it doesn't affect them at all, not even indirectly.

Ah but it does: it's about the Money that a government marriage license gets you access too. Who do you think pays for Spousal benefits etc?



"....However, a Supreme Court ruling (Egan v. Canada 1995) read sexual orientation into the Charter. Of course, the Charter could not be actually amended, but Constitutional Amendment is a completely seperate topic, isn't it?

The Court ruled that "sexual orientation is an analogous ground of discrimination under the open-ended list of grounds of discrimination in section 15 of the Charter." (Smith, 92)..." Chief Me

True enough. I sometimes think I should refrain from these unimportant issues when there are bigger issues such as the Judiciary making laws when that is a Legislative (Parlimentary) Task. Doesn't make it right.

[wb256]

so, granting equality to people should be denied on the fact that...it costs too much?

I'm sure it cost a fair bit to end racial segregation in the USA...and to implement it by force in the southern states. However, I don't think you'll find many who will agree tht it was a bad idea because it costs money.

Also, I doubt the bill for spousal benifits being afforded to same sex couples will be anything drastic.

[Svejk]

This isn't about equality at all. Homosexual couples can not provide the same functions to the Nation as any heterosexual couple can: the Production of Future Citizens. (For the Record, I don't think Hetereo Couples should receive special benefits either.) As a hetereo, I will get married and have children but without the License since I don't believe the Government has a right to regulate this.

Are you saying that there should be no standards/qualifications for recieving a license? Isn't the Purpose of a License (whether law, medical, gun, or driver's) to exclude people who don't qualify?

Would it cost alot? No. But it is still other people's money. There is no legitimate right to those monies. I can afford to let you rob me of $5 more than I can $5,000 but on general principle I should fight just as hard for $5 because it is not yours by right.

The Same Sex debate also distracts us from real issues such as the Plan Increase of the Land Element to support the UN/NWO.

Piper-from-camp: their is a bias here. It is OK to use labels such as "right-winger", "nut", "bible-thumper", or religions in a derogatory manner but to identiofy ideas and the People that hold them as "collectivist", "communist" or in support of the "New World Order" will get your hand slapped on occasion. Life is unfair: I am both smart and handsome and many are neither.

[Lola]

Homosexual couples can not provide the same functions to the Nation as any heterosexual couple can: the Production of Future Citizens.

Well, technically they can, just not with each other. I don't know how many gay couples are doing that, though.

[piper-from-camp]

Well, technically they can, just not with each other. I don't know how many gay couples are doing that, though.

But there are raising kids that were concieved and born by...you guessed it...heterosexual couples. There is stuff like surrogate mothers, but thats a whole new discussion (I think that that idea is wrong in every respect, a child should know who its real parents are and at least have a chance to be raised by them).

[Juice]

But there are raising kids that were concieved and born by...you guessed it...heterosexual couples. There is stuff like surrogate mothers, but thats a whole new discussion (I think that that idea is wrong in every respect, a child should know who its real parents are and at least have a chance to be raised by them).
Or artificial ensenmination (sp?). Oh, and Id like ot thank you for pointing out the obvious. Of course heterosexual couples are capable of producing children with each other! :rolleyes: Does that mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to ahve children because they can't? That's a pretty faulty argument there piper. If we were to go with that logic, then not only gays would nopt be allowed to have children, but also any other couple that is uncapable of having children with each other would also have to not be allowed to adopt. But wait, what would we do with all those kids in orphanges and adoption agencies or whathaveyou. I guess theyre out of luck because according to your logic, no one would be allowed to adopt. Jusdt because you can't produce kids with your partner does not make you incapable of raising them. Sexual orientation should not play a role in that.

[wb256]

I am both smart and handsome and many are neither.


That's...um...relevant how?


Homosexual couples cannot bear children, no. However, if you look at the masses of parentless chrildren there are, they can raise them. It would be a huge service to children to NOT be raised in an orphanage or cycled from group home to foster home.

Also, if heterosexual attempts to collect marriage benifits are legitimate, why are homosexual attempts not? If it's because they cannot bear children, then how is a heterosexual couple who chooses to not have kids, or are infertile, able to collect these benifits?

Also, there is no bias. You didn't refer to one person, correctly, as a collectivist or communist. You claimed that there was a conspiracy between socialists, feminists and homosexuals to undermind the family unit. This is crazy...and espousing hatred. There's absolutly no evidence of homosexual political unity, or communication between these varying groups to do ANYTHING of the sort.

For someone who proclaims himself so intelligent, I thought the distinction between using a word and making allusions to a conspiracy theory would be obvious. I hope you're better looking than you are smart;)

[Ching]

Life is unfair: I am both smart and handsome and many are neither.
Your source on this? :confused:


;)

[SLt Merrall]

True enough. I sometimes think I should refrain from these unimportant issues when there are bigger issues such as the Judiciary making laws when that is a Legislative (Parlimentary) Task. Doesn't make it right.

The Supreme Court wasn't making a law. You're right - they can't and they don't. The government has branches for a reason. The legislative makes the laws, and the judiciary doesn't. The Supreme Court simply passed a ruling that sets a precedent, and that must be taken into account when trying a related case. Unless Parliament ammends the law, it remains the same. And by the way, if you check up on the acts, the sections which were in question were repealed by Parliament.

[SLt Merrall]

This isn't about equality at all. Homosexual couples can not provide the same functions to the Nation as any heterosexual couple can: the Production of Future Citizens. (For the Record, I don't think Hetereo Couples should receive special benefits either.) As a hetereo, I will get married and have children but without the License since I don't believe the Government has a right to regulate this.

Are you saying that there should be no standards/qualifications for recieving a license? Isn't the Purpose of a License (whether law, medical, gun, or driver's) to exclude people who don't qualify?

It may not be equality to you, but it is to most others. Who cares that homosexual couples can't procreate with one another. There are thousands of parentless children out there.

And also, you are right about the purpose of a license. And the marriage license fullfills that. Maybe you should look up the criteria for marriage here in Canada...

[Svejk]

The Ruling may have been repealed but until it was or if it wasn't it would have been a law. Evrything should go through the Legislative first.

I can definately agree with the Latter Posts. 1) This is about money. 2) Maybe benefits related to marriage should be repealed for everyone or at least redefined to include additional qualification such as bearing/adopting children etc.

The Family Unit should be protected and honoured by the Coercive Power of Government is not how we should. I really wish the Conservatives would let these issues die and move onto more pressing life and liberty issues. Those of us who believe this way is superior, like good manners and breeding, will insist on it regardless of the Government or outside corruption but it will make us work harder.

Sidebar: what exactly is espousing hatred? Have I ever advocated violence to any groups except in self -defense?

My momma says I am smart and purty so therefore I is. It's relevant because life is unfair/inequal.

[wb256]

because, you're posting lies about a conspiracy that you have yet to proove. Spreading lies about a sector of soceity, extreamly derogatory ones at that, will inevitably lead to hatred towards such groups by those who believe your lies.

Opinions are fine, as long as you use legitimate facts to back them up.

[Lt(N) DesJardins]

The Ruling may have been repealed but until it was or if it wasn't it would have been a law. Evrything should go through the Legislative first.

What are you saying here?


I can definately agree with the Latter Posts. 1) This is about money. 2) Maybe benefits related to marriage should be repealed for everyone or at least redefined to include additional qualification such as bearing/adopting children etc.

Who's money is it about? Benefits are already granted to same sex couples. They can claim to be classified as a common-law couple (providing they meet the set criteria). Individuals and couples pay for these services. Whether or not they have children is irrelevant.

The Family Unit should be protected and honoured by the Coercive Power of Government is not how we should.

?????????????????

I really wish the Conservatives would let these issues die and move onto more pressing life and liberty issues.

The Liberals are the ones who started this debate. It has been passed on to the Right Honourable Paul Martin; he who has made it an issue on his agenda.

Those of us who believe this way is superior, like good manners and breeding, will insist on it regardless of the Government or outside corruption but it will make us work harder.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

My momma says I am smart and purty so therefore I is. It's relevant because life is unfair/inequal.

You're right. Life is unfair. How does that make it OK?

[Wolfmann]

They are catagorized under common-law.

Common-law status is not automatic and is not the same as marriage. There is generally three criteria under common-law and family law that grants a specific couple common-law status: 1) Acknowledgement by both parties of their status 2) cohabitation with sexual consummation within a set time frame (usually 3 years) 3) children and/or 4) A compounding tax benefit.

Generaly 3 of those 4 things needs to be in place for their to be a concrete common-law status...ie...there is no denial of status. However for 2 and 3 only one of those two conditions need to be, without the other items being proven.

And common-law status does not afford you the same rights or privileges as married couples, but it's close. A common-law spouse cannot sue for alimony, as that is a marital right. There are provisions for support, but they are not automatic. However they can demand child support if there is a biological relationship to the children. The dissemination of assets is not 50/50, however unless a title is directly in name to them. IE...if a house is in a 3rd party's name, despite their habitation, either party can not draw claim to it...even if they were paying the mortgage. Likewise, if a common-law spouse comes to cohabitation with their partner who's house is in their name before their cohabitation the common-law spouse does not have claim of right to that property. Anything obtained after the common-law period has commenced, however, is fair game. The requirement for separation is not required, like it is for marriage.

There are small, but important differences, which is why I do not blame same sex couples wishing to have the exact same rights as afforded to them my marriage.

Common-law status isn't enough.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Honest to God, the goverenment is being so dumb. I know that the legal definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, but still. There's nothing wrong with gays and lesbians. They're the best kinds of friends that you can have.They're absolutely harmless. They wouldn't do anything to hurt anyone. They are also still human beings, and human beings have feelings and rights, so why not give them the priveledge of getting married. As weird as this sounds, personally, I'd love to have 2 moms or 2 dads, would be pretty convienient, lol.

[SLt Merrall]

The Ruling may have been repealed but until it was or if it wasn't it would have been a law. Evrything should go through the Legislative first.

I can definately agree with the Latter Posts. 1) This is about money. 2) Maybe benefits related to marriage should be repealed for everyone or at least redefined to include additional qualification such as bearing/adopting children etc.

The Family Unit should be protected and honoured by the Coercive Power of Government is not how we should. I really wish the Conservatives would let these issues die and move onto more pressing life and liberty issues. Those of us who believe this way is superior, like good manners and breeding, will insist on it regardless of the Government or outside corruption but it will make us work harder.

Sidebar: what exactly is espousing hatred? Have I ever advocated violence to any groups except in self -defense?

My momma says I am smart and purty so therefore I is. It's relevant because life is unfair/inequal.

You are confusing... If it went through the legislative first, then we would have no use for a judiciary. From what little sense I am making of your posts, it seems as if you would favour a system without a judiciary. The judiciary is there to keep the legislative bodies in line. In case you haven't noticed, a majority in the Commons, kept in line with a very good party whip, translates to absolute power in Canada (more or less). The judiciary is there to make sure that the laws remain constitutional, which is exactly what the Supreme Court did.

[DA Wright]

You are confusing... If it went through the legislative first, then we would have no use for a judiciary. From what little sense I am making of your posts, it seems as if you would favour a system without a judiciary. The judiciary is there to keep the legislative bodies in line. In case you haven't noticed, a majority in the Commons, kept in line with a very good party whip, translates to absolute power in Canada (more or less). The judiciary is there to make sure that the laws remain constitutional, which is exactly what the Supreme Court did.

Where the Ontario Supreme court wrongly usurped the legislative process was that it took the extra, unecessary step to strike down the law immediately. The role of the judiciary is not to make laws, it is to validate law and ensure that all laws are in keeping with one another. The B.C. court took the usual route of ruling, "we find this law to be unconstitutional, and we will strike it down on xxxx date if the government does not correct it." They normally allow a year or two. The Ontario court took the unusual step of taking immediate action, making it impossible for the government to respond.

The Ontario court's justification was that the government had not demonstrated any action following the B.C. ruling, which was going to take effect in mere months, so the court was merely accelerating an inevitable process. While I would agree the court took unwarranted action, it remains the government that is at fault for failing to take any action, and essentially copping out. The government was in a position to pass any law on this matter, but rather than taking a leadership role, they are waiting it out. Nearly three years ago, right after the B.C. case was decided, the government had had several options: take the moral high ground and do what they believe is right, do what will satisfy public opinion, call a binding or non-binding referendum, do what they think would be best for the country, etc. Instead of doing anything, they have sat back and done nothing so they can rest on the argument "we had no choice bu to comply with the courts". We elect government to govern, by sidestepping this issue for so long, they have let both sides down.

[Juice]

Where the Ontario Supreme court ... they have let both sides down.
Very well said sir.

[SLt Merrall]

Where the Ontario Supreme court wrongly usurped the legislative process was that it took the extra, unecessary step to strike down the law immediately. The role of the judiciary is not to make laws, it is to validate law and ensure that all laws are in keeping with one another. The B.C. court took the usual route of ruling, "we find this law to be unconstitutional, and we will strike it down on xxxx date if the government does not correct it." They normally allow a year or two. The Ontario court took the unusual step of taking immediate action, making it impossible for the government to respond.

The Ontario court's justification was that the government had not demonstrated any action following the B.C. ruling, which was going to take effect in mere months, so the court was merely accelerating an inevitable process. While I would agree the court took unwarranted action, it remains the government that is at fault for failing to take any action, and essentially copping out. The government was in a position to pass any law on this matter, but rather than taking a leadership role, they are waiting it out. Nearly three years ago, right after the B.C. case was decided, the government had had several options: take the moral high ground and do what they believe is right, do what will satisfy public opinion, call a binding or non-binding referendum, do what they think would be best for the country, etc. Instead of doing anything, they have sat back and done nothing so they can rest on the argument "we had no choice bu to comply with the courts". We elect government to govern, by sidestepping this issue for so long, they have let both sides down.

OK. I was unaware of the Ontario Supreme Court's actions. I assumed they had followed the same process that the BC courts had used. My mistake... :)

Other than that, my comments on the Judiciary and Legislative branches in general stand.

[DA Wright]

One illustration of the ambiguity of "whose rights prevail"...

The Knights and the lesbians: Exhibit A in same-sex uproar


By MICHAEL VALPY
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - Page A1


Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith found just the hall they wanted to rent for their wedding reception. It was located behind a church in the Vancouver suburb of Port Coquitlam and managed by the Knights of Columbus, an organization they thought was the same as the Elks.

That mistake -- confusing the Elks with the Knights -- has taken them into the epicentre of the national debate on same-sex marriage, with Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives citing the couple as Exhibit A in the Tories' declaration that government legislation unveiled yesterday permitting homosexuals to marry will result in severe assaults on Canadians' freedom of religion.

Prime Minister Paul Martin defended the bill, insisting that no religious organization will be forced to perform homosexual marriages if their teaching is opposed to them. But he also said that "Canada is a country where minorities are protected" -- a claim the Tories sought to turn against him by saying the debate on same-sex marriage will be all about protecting Canadians' religious freedoms.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith's claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men's fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.

The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.

That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.

Their case points to what many legal scholars and religious leaders say is a murky area between protection of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. They say it could lead to religious organizations and individuals by the phalanx heading to courts and rights tribunals once the same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.

"It's going to be endless," said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, a specialist in freedom of expression and legal regulation of adult relationships.

The B.C. Knights of Columbus case focuses on whether a church-related organization is the same as a church and whether freedom of religion extends beyond refusing to perform a same-sex marriage to refusing to celebrate one.

Provincial governments, which license civil commissioners to perform marriages, are wrestling with allowing them to follow their conscience and religious belief when it comes to same-sex marriages or, as Manitoba has done, ordering them to surrender their licences and find another line of work.

Yesterday, the Tories produced a list of seven cases to illustrate the freedom of religion and anti-discrimination protections. All the cases had previously received considerable publicity -- such as the gay student in a Catholic high school in Oshawa, Ont., who secured a Superior Court injunction against the school board's order that he not bring a male date to the school prom -- and none touched directly on same-sex marriage.

In contrast, the case of the Knights and Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith is destined to become a textbook model.

The hall has a sign outside saying simply that it was for rent and listing a telephone number.

B.C.'s Human Rights Code says "a person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public."

Both sides agreed that freedom of religion could be a "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" but lawyer barbara findlay, representing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith, says it wasn't operable in this case.

Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name, said the religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples could not be equated to religious freedom for a lay organization of Catholics to refuse to rent premises for the celebration of a same-sex marriage -- not if the premises were generally offered to the public.

She also likened the Knights' refusal to rent their hall to Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith as being comparable to a hypothetical case in which, if the Knights ran a daycare, they refused to accept the children of a lesbian couple.

Knights' lawyer George Macintosh said the Catholic Church owns the hall, and membership in the Knights is limited to practising Catholics.

"If it's lawful to say no to [performing] a same-sex marriage, it's lawful to say no to celebrating the event. To celebrate an event against your religious belief is the same as conducting the event yourself."

Mr. Macintosh said the sign in front of the Knights' hall did not have to state that it would not be rented to people who acted against Catholic teachings because that was covered by the "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" provision of the Human Rights Code.

Ms. findlay said the sign has since been taken down and the Knights now rent the hall only to members of the adjacent Catholic church.

[JGallagher]

While watching the CBC last night they were talking about Same Sex Marrage. They possed a question and it was this. "If you vote against same sex marriage does that make you homophobic?" What do you think?

[Little Cadet]

While watching the CBC last night they were talking about Same Sex Marrage. They possed a question and it was this. "If you vote against same sex marriage does that make you homophobic?" What do you think?

I think you should learn how to spell...

[BHillUSMC]

I think you should learn how to spell...

That is a bit rude.

[Little Cadet]

I guess i'm the only one that finds it annoying when people omit to read over their posts (over and over again). Well thinking it over, you're maybe, possibly trying to be tolerant of us, so I will take the comment back.

To answer your question,
I don't think someone who opposes to it is necessarily homophobic.

Also, have any of you ever thought about how some gay couples might NOT want to get married? I've heard it often, and I have to say I was kind of surprised at first, mainly because you always hear about those who WANT to get married. However, if you listen to what they have to say about it, it makes sense. It goes along the lines of having to assimilate or having to conform to society, instead of having people accepting you for your differences. I guess it all depends on how you see things. I agree in a way, but it doesn't change the fact that I would still fight for the rights of those wish to get married. Just like I would fight for black people to get married even though I'm not black.

[Juice]

Exactly. It's not so much that all gay people want to get married, that's just another stereotype. It's more the fact that they want the choice to get married. We don't use all our rights that we have everyday, but it is nice to know that when we need them or want them, we can exercise them. I think its a similar principle here.

[Little Cadet]

Exactly. It's not so much that all gay people want to get married, that's just another stereotype. It's more the fact that they want the choice to get married. We don't use all our rights that we have everyday, but it is nice to know that when we need them or want them, we can exercise them. I think its a similar principle here.

Thanks! That's what I meant to say :)

[JGallagher]

I think you should learn how to spell...


I dont think I care what you think about my spelling!!

[DMCorrigan]

I dont think I care what you think about my spelling!!

You should. On an internet forum, spelling, grammar and punctuation are very important. Excellent points can be demolished by horrible spelling and bad use of any given language.
---------------
U should. On an internte forem, spelling, grammer and punctution r very importent. Xcellant points can be demolshed by horible spelling and bad use of ne given language.
---------------

See the difference? My first one sounds educated and intelligent. My second one makes me look like a n00b from l337 g4m35 like Quake.

[N. McKay]

You should. On an internet forum, spelling, grammar and punctuation are very important. Excellent points can be demolished by horrible spelling and bad use of any given language.
---------------
U should. On an internte forem, spelling, grammer and punctution r very importent. Xcellant points can be demolshed by horible spelling and bad use of ne given language.

You could make some money as a translator these days.

[DMCorrigan]

Thank you, SLt McKay, but there are more than enough n00bs fr0m Qu4k3 who know how to speak better l337 and spell worse than me that can show us the differences between standard English and internet lingo.

[N. McKay]

Thank you, SLt McKay, but there are more than enough n00bs fr0m Qu4k3 who know how to speak better l337 and spell worse than me that can show us the differences between standard English and internet lingo.

I'm sure that's all true, but I only understood two thirds of it.

[DMCorrigan]

That's okay. It was more for me than you anyway ;)

[Juice]

That's okay. It was more for me than you anyway ;)
It's ALWAYS got to be about you doesn't it Corri? :p ;)

[DMCorrigan]

*ponders*...Yeah, yeah it does. ;)

[SLt Merrall]

Exactly. It's not so much that all gay people want to get married, that's just another stereotype. It's more the fact that they want the choice to get married. We don't use all our rights that we have everyday, but it is nice to know that when we need them or want them, we can exercise them. I think its a similar principle here.

Exactly. Not every gay couple wants to get married, but having the option is a big deal. As far as I can tell, the gay community simply doesn't want to be marginalized by society anymore, and not having the right to marry is a strong symbol of that marginalization (< if that's a word... :confused: ).

[survivalfreak572]

FINALLY!!!!Come to think of it...what's in it for the government if they won't allow same-sex marriages...really??? It's about time they let these people express themselves...who they really are without being judged! We really can't help "stereotypes" it's all part of the "human nature", but it's good that someone finally do some action! ;) Amazing!

[DMCorrigan]

Throwing around 'human nature' is an ineffective argument, but I do agree with the rest of your points, Warrent.

[GliderGimp]

Canada took a huge step in the positive direction and I would have been thoroughly dismayed otherwise.

[Dick]

Canada took a huge step in the positive direction and I would have been thoroughly dismayed otherwise.

So when's your wedding ;)

[GliderGimp]

What, you mean to the Wife?.....lol.....

[Dick]

What, you mean to the Wife?.....lol.....

but of course.

[Svejk]

I agree that most homosexuals aren't motivated or even aware of some of the Significance of this Issue. They just want to look and act like heterosexuals. Fair enough. But the Issue is bigger than that. The French Revolution was also about "egalite" and ended with the Terrors of Robspierre and the Imperialism of Napoleon.

The Man Woman Marriage is a unique contract in that it was to protect parties that would otherwise lose in the Arrangement. A young woman who marries, bears children, and raises them at home loses many years of work experience that renders her and her offspring very vulnerable should the Male abandon them. This is a common truth for cultures (with few exceptions) around the World. Women and children are in a very vulnerable position during the Procreative Process: matrimony protects against this. Who is the Biggest Loser in these changes? The Middle Aged Female.

The Biggest Problem with a homosexual marriage is that it will be used to break the Family Unit eventually. It will make matrimony less distinct and therefore weaken it. This has already been done within the Last 50 Years with feminism, increasing promiscuity, and easier divorce. Homomatrimony is just a further step in this weakening process.

But why care? Because the Family is the Strongest Unit of Support by our fellow humans. Parents will almost do anything for their offspring if the Believe it to be right and in there best interest. When are you in danger in the Woods the Most? When you get between the Mother Grizzly Bear and her cub! Collectivists always try to break down the Family so that the State can then become the Parents: hello Uncle Joe (Stalin) and Mein Furher!

A more complete and eloquent arguement is contained in "The War Against the Family" written by (Canadian) Dr William Gairdner. Its big and thick but is extensively footnoted and bulletproof. I am not able to match him.

[Little Cadet]

I agree that most homosexuals aren't motivated or even aware of some of the Significance of this Issue. They just want to look and act like heterosexuals. Fair enough. But the Issue is bigger than that.

Have you ever lived in the GLBTQ community? I highly doubt it, because if you had any idea, you wouldn't be making a comment like that. Consequently, you have nothing to back that up. I can tell you that a very good part of the community follows this issue very closely. As a matter of fact, seminars by University professors were held here today at UofO, on the topic. I have many friends involved in issue, and it's far from being over, but it will happen, sooner or later, so you better get used to the idea.

We do not want to act or look like heterosexuals, far from it! (Where did you pull that out of anyways!?). It's a legal issue, a constitutional right to which every canadian should be entitled to. It's not a moral issue, but unfortunately, too many people are letting their morals get in the way of rational thinking.

The Man Woman Marriage is a unique contract in that it was to protect parties that would otherwise lose in the Arrangement. A young woman who marries, bears children, and raises them at home loses many years of work experience that renders her and her offspring very vulnerable should the Male abandon them. This is a common truth for cultures (with few exceptions) around the World. Women and children are in a very vulnerable position during the Procreative Process: matrimony protects against this. Who is the Biggest Loser in these changes? The Middle Aged Female.

Well that sounds smart and all, but it's completely irrelevant to the issue. It's true that single parent families where the mother is on her own often struggle more than united families, its been proven. However, not all families where both parents exists function perfectly like you suppose. What about kids who have both parents at home, but daddy is an alcoholic, or hits them, are you going to tell me that's better than having homosexual parents!?

And get your head out of the sand, not all mothers stay at home to raise their kids, many of them return to work after a year. Anyhow, it's still irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.

The Biggest Problem with a homosexual marriage is that it will be used to break the Family Unit eventually. It will make matrimony less distinct and therefore weaken it. This has already been done within the Last 50 Years with feminism, increasing promiscuity, and easier divorce. Homomatrimony is just a further step in this weakening process.

Riiiight. Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising a stable and happy family. There's already thousands of families like that out there at this very moment; they're just not married. Values change, times change. If things did not evolve, you would never be allowed to wear pants, and you'd have a nice life of staying home and raising children ahead of you. Oh, and you wouldn't be allowed in cadets either. I don't see where the problem is, us getting married isn't gonna affect you in any way.

[Insane Power Pilot]

What about kids who have both parents at home, but daddy is an alcoholic, or hits them, are you going to tell me that's better than having homosexual parents!?

Not if the kids had homosexual parents who were alcoholics or hit them! ;)

[Little Cadet]

Not if the kids had homosexual parents who were alcoholics or hit them! ;)

Hehe!! Sorry for generalizing. There ARE straight parents that hit their kids, just like there are gay parents that hit their kids. We're all humans, and there's idiots in all walks of life!

[Svejk]

I shall rephrase: the Issue is important to the Homosexual Community but the Goal for most is "Equality".

You do Not have a right to get a license from the Government. Do you have aright to goto a lawyer, get a contract written up, sign it in public ata fancy ceremony, and live with a same sex partner. Every right. But you are not "entitled" to drivers/gun/law license. Why is marriage different?

The remaining paras of my last post outline a previous post of mine where I stated that this issue was related to feminism and to collectivist destruction of our society. I doubt most who are campaigning for this change have this in mind but it is being used for this purpose. Convincing young women that children and keeping ahome is beneath them is just a further step. How easier can it be to train a population to be automatons when we can break a child's bond with their mother almost at birth; have state licensed personnel look after them from there at daycare, playschool, and public school; and take money from everybody to pay for it whether they consent to or not! I have placed "" around entitled and equality since the are keywords used by collectivists whether marxist, nazi, or other.

Yes, matrimony is not perfect but blood is thicker than water. They wish to break us and isolate us from our own blood relations.

Distract us with meaningless sex, isolate us from our kin, miseducate us, and slowly gain control.

[Little Cadet]

Yes, matrimony is not perfect but blood is thicker than water. They wish to break us and isolate us from our own blood relations.

Distract us with meaningless sex, isolate us from our kin, miseducate us, and slowly gain control.


OMG! You just uncovered our conspiracy to take over the world! Congratulation!:confused:
Okay, so according to your standards, the great majority of the straight population is also distracting you. Seriouly, you're not going to tell me that most people have sex solely for the purpose of procreation.

Miseducate you? You know what I did this week? Educate people about about the importance of safe sex, and fundraise money for an organisation that takes care of people with HIV and AIDS. This is something that the RC Church doesn't do, and believe me, the issue is getting too important to be ignored.

[Chief Hoult]

I find your post offensive simply from the standpoint of someone from a household that has two working parents. I don't really think my family ever suffered from having my parents as working members of society, and some how my 3 brothers and I managed ;)


I will, however, give you that they aren't training mothers anymore. When my mom had my older brother in '84, she was in the hopsital for 10 days or something (and he was a healthy baby!), and they taught all the new mothers how to bathe, breastfeed, etc.

When my youngest brother was born ('92), I'm not even sure my mom was allowed to stay for more than a day. She was telling us stories of women she would over hear in the ward, who had their first kid in the '90s, who would come in, upset that their babies weren't gaining weight. Once the doctors started feeding te kid, low and behld, the kid would start putting on weight. Then you'd hear the mothers talking to eachother going, "You know that baby formula says to mix it 4:1? It lasts sooo much long if you do it 10:1!" Yeah, no crap your baby wasn't gaining weight.

But I'd say people are rushed out from more of a financial standpoint, rather than the homosexual conspiracy (are they allied with feminism?).

CH

[Juice]

But I'd say people are rushed out from more of a financial standpoint, rather than the homosexual conspiracy (are they allied with feminism?).
Yeah, we gotta stop the conspiracy before it consumes us all. Burn the heretics! And beat them with big sticks! You with me Colin? :p

[Chief Hoult]

Yeah, we gotta stop the conspiracy before it consumes us all. Burn the heretics! And beat them with big sticks! You with me Colin? :p

Only if we put nails on the ends of the sticks! ;)

CH

[Boosey]

OMG! You just uncovered our conspiracy to take over the world! Congratulation!:confused:


Ack. We've been found out. Run........

lol

[SLt Merrall]

I shall rephrase: the Issue is important to the Homosexual Community but the Goal for most is "Equality".

You do Not have a right to get a license from the Government. Do you have aright to goto a lawyer, get a contract written up, sign it in public ata fancy ceremony, and live with a same sex partner. Every right. But you are not "entitled" to drivers/gun/law license. Why is marriage different?

You speak as if the GLB (etc, etc) community is asking to be given licenses automatically. Do heterosexuals get them automatically? No, they don't, and neither would we. We aren't asking to have the "right to get a license," but the right to apply for a license, and not have our sexual orientation affect the decision.

And you are right - this is an equality issue. But in Canada, that means it is a legal issue. And there is simply no legal principle in Canada that can make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage.

[Juice]

Only if we put nails on the ends of the sticks! ;)

CH
I've got the box of nails, where are the sticks? :p

[quadrapiper]

One illustration of the ambiguity of "whose rights prevail"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Globe and Mail
The Knights and the lesbians: Exhibit A in same-sex uproar


By MICHAEL VALPY
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - Page A1


Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith found just the hall they wanted to rent for their wedding reception. It was located behind a church in the Vancouver suburb of Port Coquitlam and managed by the Knights of Columbus, an organization they thought was the same as the Elks.

That mistake -- confusing the Elks with the Knights -- has taken them into the epicentre of the national debate on same-sex marriage, with Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives citing the couple as Exhibit A in the Tories' declaration that government legislation unveiled yesterday permitting homosexuals to marry will result in severe assaults on Canadians' freedom of religion.

Prime Minister Paul Martin defended the bill, insisting that no religious organization will be forced to perform homosexual marriages if their teaching is opposed to them. But he also said that "Canada is a country where minorities are protected" -- a claim the Tories sought to turn against him by saying the debate on same-sex marriage will be all about protecting Canadians' religious freedoms.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith's claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men's fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.

The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.

That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.

Their case points to what many legal scholars and religious leaders say is a murky area between protection of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. They say it could lead to religious organizations and individuals by the phalanx heading to courts and rights tribunals once the same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.

"It's going to be endless," said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, a specialist in freedom of expression and legal regulation of adult relationships.

The B.C. Knights of Columbus case focuses on whether a church-related organization is the same as a church and whether freedom of religion extends beyond refusing to perform a same-sex marriage to refusing to celebrate one.

Provincial governments, which license civil commissioners to perform marriages, are wrestling with allowing them to follow their conscience and religious belief when it comes to same-sex marriages or, as Manitoba has done, ordering them to surrender their licences and find another line of work.

Yesterday, the Tories produced a list of seven cases to illustrate the freedom of religion and anti-discrimination protections. All the cases had previously received considerable publicity -- such as the gay student in a Catholic high school in Oshawa, Ont., who secured a Superior Court injunction against the school board's order that he not bring a male date to the school prom -- and none touched directly on same-sex marriage.

In contrast, the case of the Knights and Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith is destined to become a textbook model.

The hall has a sign outside saying simply that it was for rent and listing a telephone number.

B.C.'s Human Rights Code says "a person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public."

Both sides agreed that freedom of religion could be a "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" but lawyer barbara findlay, representing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith, says it wasn't operable in this case.

Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name, said the religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples could not be equated to religious freedom for a lay organization of Catholics to refuse to rent premises for the celebration of a same-sex marriage -- not if the premises were generally offered to the public.

She also likened the Knights' refusal to rent their hall to Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith as being comparable to a hypothetical case in which, if the Knights ran a daycare, they refused to accept the children of a lesbian couple.

Knights' lawyer George Macintosh said the Catholic Church owns the hall, and membership in the Knights is limited to practising Catholics.

"If it's lawful to say no to [performing] a same-sex marriage, it's lawful to say no to celebrating the event. To celebrate an event against your religious belief is the same as conducting the event yourself."

Mr. Macintosh said the sign in front of the Knights' hall did not have to state that it would not be rented to people who acted against Catholic teachings because that was covered by the "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" provision of the Human Rights Code.

Ms. findlay said the sign has since been taken down and the Knights now rent the hall only to members of the adjacent Catholic church.



The issue discussed in this article would appear to have very little to do with the current debate. The Knights, by offering their hall for rent to the general public, should have expected that that would mean that the general public would wish to rent, not just the apparently bigoted and close-minded Neanderthals of the K of C. By making what is basically a commercial offer, they don't have the protection afforded a religious organization or a private individual - they cannot choose their clientele based on personal beliefs. The actions of the K of C branch described here would be comparable to me, as the manager of a hypothetical grocery store, refusing service to someone opposed to gay marriage because of my personal opinion regarding their beliefs. It wouldn't fly. Shame on the K of C.

[Lola]

Convincing young women that children and keeping ahome is beneath them is just a further step.

Okay, I agree with you that women shouldn't feel that being a homemaker is beneath them. But from different websites and magazines I've read, I think that this generation of feminists(3rd generation?) is slowly changing the attitude towards homemaking into a positive one.

But I get the feeling from the tone of your posts that you think women should just be homemakers. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[JGallagher]

But I get the feeling from the tone of your posts that you think women should just be homemakers. Tell me if I'm wrong.


Regardless of a persons gender or race they should have the option to do what they wish.

[Chief Hoult]

Regardless of a persons gender or race they should have the option to do what they wish.

I'd add also regardless of sexual orientation, and agree with your statement (within reason) :)

CH

[piper-from-camp]

The issue discussed in this article would appear to have very little to do with the current debate. The Knights, by offering their hall for rent to the general public, should have expected that that would mean that the general public would wish to rent, not just the apparently bigoted and close-minded Neanderthals of the K of C. By making what is basically a commercial offer, they don't have the protection afforded a religious organization or a private individual - they cannot choose their clientele based on personal beliefs. The actions of the K of C branch described here would be comparable to me, as the manager of a hypothetical grocery store, refusing service to someone opposed to gay marriage because of my personal opinion regarding their beliefs. It wouldn't fly. Shame on the K of C.

Why should the KofC be ashamed for what they did? They refused to do something that went against their beliefs. Therefore, you mean to say that we should have (churches included) 'gay rights' shoved down our throats whether we like it or not? Gays may think that they have a right to marry, but the rest of us have a right to NOT like it AND to refuse to conduct these activities or be party to any of them. Thats what the KofC did, if the people who rented the place did not like it....well, theres plenty of other places for them to go. I support what the KofC did, they took a stand for their beliefs. I say, congradulations to the KofC for standing their ground.

[Preece]

Why should the KofC be ashamed for what they did? They refused to do something that went against their beliefs. Therefore, you mean to say that we should have (churches included) 'gay rights' shoved down our throats whether we like it or not? Gays may think that they have a right to marry, but the rest of us have a right to NOT like it AND to refuse to conduct these activities or be party to any of them. Thats what the KofC did, if the people who rented the place did not like it....well, theres plenty of other places for them to go. I support what the KofC did, they took a stand for their beliefs. I say, congradulations to the KofC for standing their ground.



.............i dont like you.....