Gay marriage legalized in Canada

[Sauron]

:lindance:


Just one of two dozen reasons why I wish I were a Canadian: social justice with some teeth in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072001811.html

Canada 4th Nation to Legalize Gay Marriage

By ROB GILLIES
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 20, 2005; 6:53 PM

TORONTO -- Canada legalized gay marriage Wednesday, becoming the world's fourth nation to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

The bill gives homosexual couples the same rights as those in traditional unions between a man and a woman, something already legal in eight of Canada's 10 provinces and in two of its three territories.

The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government easily passed the Senate, which essentially rubber stamps any bill already passed by the House of Commons, which passed it late last month.

The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain are the only other nations that allow gay marriage nationwide.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Canada is good people!

[Ensign Steve]

If it wasn't for the weather, I would have moved there years ago.

[PinkRose]

gay is in....no further comments. MUNCH a BUNCH. Jam It. if thats what it takes, stuff it. hand me the gel.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

If it wasn't for the weather, I would have moved there years ago.

I don’t think I’d mind the weather much as I don’t really mind the cold and I love snow. I would consider moving there; it could happen.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

If it wasn't for the weather, I would have moved there years ago.

I grew up in Michigan, I can handle the weather. From what I've heard around here though it's really not as easy as just moving there. They have to want your kind. (ie. No, no. Not that kind. People with your job skillz.)

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

If it wasn't for the weather, I would have moved there years ago.

Coastal British Columbia rarely dips below freezing. It was 95 (Farenheit) in Toronto today.

[Shake]

4 countries down ... lots more to go.

Still, it's a start.

Here in NY, the state has decided not to pursue legal action against the New Paltz mayor who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Due to our proximity to both Vermont and Mass., I could see NY being among the next states to take a similar step.

[koan]

I suspect the gay divorce rate will not be as high. They fought so hard for the right, perhaps it will mean more to them?

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by koan

I suspect the gay divorce rate will not be as high. They fought so hard for the right, perhaps it will mean more to them?

Nah. Have more faith in human nature. Gay people are just as capable of infidelity, getting married for spurious reasons, financial carelessness, emotional dysfunction, and domestic abuse as straight people.

[PinkRose]

don't touch me or look at me that way......OKAY. NO i am not doing scissor with you or any one else for that matter. NO.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Nah. Have more faith in human nature. Gay people are just as capable of infidelity, getting married for spurious reasons, financial carelessness, emotional dysfunction, and domestic abuse as straight people.

True enough. There is a mountain of solid research that supports the idea that straight married couples rate their satisfaction with their relationship the highest right after getting married and then when their children leave their home. In other words, children tend to suck the “life” out of marital relationships or at lest the satisfaction regarding different facets of those relationships. So gay married couples might actually be happier and stay together longer, that is until it is easier for them to adopt children.

[SillyGoose]

Koan: I suspect the gay divorce rate will not be as high. They fought so hard for the right, perhaps it will mean more to them?

I suspect you're right. I used to be a divorce lawyer (before becoming a lazy-ass SAHM). From my own firm's anecdotal experience, I can tell you that over 50% of the divorces we saw involved people who had married because they got pregnant!! Same sex couples don't get each other knocked up by accident. So I bet they will get married for better reasons than failed or forgotten contraception.

[Adora]

Yeah, and there may not be as much of the issues of gender relations that have caused changes in divorce rates over the past 50 years. I've heard various percentages quoted in not-quite-reputable sources (I've had trouble finding reputable ones) that women initiate most divorces (anywhere between 60-80%) and that when issues in countries change - such as the introduction of no-fault divorces - this also rises about 10%.

Theoretically, if you remove the inter-gender issues, there shouldn't be as much of an issue with those kinds of phenomena.

[Dingfod]

Two straight men get married in Canada for tax reasons.

[Clutch Munny]

Yeah, stand by for the Right to howl about this as an example of the absurdity of the legalization.

Because, after all, there's never been a financially-motivated male-female marriage...

[Legs]

Originally Posted by Warren

Two straight men get married in Canada for tax reasons.

I was just going to post that article....

you are miles ahead of me as usual

[Sweetie]

I wish my country focused more on reason than appeals to emotion and I wished the Liberal party but especially Paul Martin wasn't quite so two-faced.

Seriously, did you see him before the election? He said nothing about his intents on this issue until after the election, he just kept backpeddling and backpeddling and being obscure saying things like, "the people's concerns will be heard and we'll look at both sides and be fair," and other such bullshit.

3% of the population has just managed to dictate to 97% of the population "how things are and are to be and should be."

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

3% of the population has just managed to dictate to 97% of the population "how things are and are to be and should be."

Are you saying only 3% of Canadians support gay marriage?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I wish my country focused more on reason than appeals to emotion

Me too.

and I wished the Liberal party but especially Paul Martin wasn't quite so two-faced.

I wish my country focused more on reason than appeals to emotion.

Seriously, did you see him before the election?

Yes.

He said nothing about his intents on this issue until after the election

Huh. I don't remember that.

Let's see what actual facts might contribute here. A search of the LexisNexis news media database, restricted to major newspapers and broadcasters from November 2003 to February 2004 (well in advance of the election) produced just over one hundred hits. A few at random:

Originally Posted by Paul Martin, Feb 26 2004, quoted nationwide in Canadian Press story

When the courts decided that it was a human rights issue and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, I said all right. As far as I'm concerned, that's decided the issue.

Originally Posted by News report, Ottawa Citizen Feb 5 2004

Questioners in Ottawa's conference centre and across the country asked Martin questions ranging from what time he goes to bed -- from a Grade 5 student -- to whether he supports same-sex marriage. That support was built on the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he said.

"I believe we have to go with the Charter. To not go with the Charter you'd bring a great deal of inequity into the Canadian social contract."

Originally Posted by Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Jan 29 2004, CTV national news interview

Our position on this is unequivocal. We are reasserting the same position that the previous government took in support of same-sex marriage

he just kept backpeddling and backpeddling and being obscure saying things like, "the people's concerns will be heard and we'll look at both sides and be fair," and other such bullshit.

Clearly this is false.

3% of the population has just managed to dictate to 97% of the population "how things are and are to be and should be."

While some polls show it closer than others, virtually every serious poll on the matter over the past ten years has a majority of Canadians supporting the right to same-sex marriage. (Including one conducted by Focus on the Family, which they declined to report in their mail-outs to members.)

So here too the facts appear inconsistent with your claim.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

3% of the population has just managed to dictate to 97% of the population "how things are and are to be and should be."

1) Making assumptions about what percentage of the population is "homosexual" is shaky at the best of times. There is no stable survey that can give a half-decent answer at this point in time.

2) I bet they said the same thing when slavery was abolished. Because, y'know, only people who are gay can support and want gay marriage. Other human beings don't campaign for human rights for their fellows. You can't support Indigenous rights if you're white. Only the minority percent of Australia's Indigenous population can do that. Oh, and when the majority Protestant population of the US decides to take away the Catholic right to marry, you can just STFU, kthx. Because they're just a minority and not allowed to dictate their own human rights and their basic right to be the equal of the others in their country, for no other reason than they're a minority. And when they decide to deny licenses to Latinos, same there. They're just a minority, and therefore not allowed to be granted basic equality. Damn straight. Minorities aren't allowed to ask for anything. They should just STFU and allow the rest of us to live off the fat of their oppression.

For fuck's sake, Sweetie. Do you ever think about the retarded shit that comes from your fucked-up pathetic little brain? Dumbarse Catholic bitch...

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Yeah, stand by for the Right to howl about this as an example of the absurdity of the legalization.

Because, after all, there's never been a financially-motivated male-female marriage...

I was making no judgement call on their motivations at all. It's just that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. I'm all for same-sex marriages, sexual orientated or not, and for marriages for infertile or elderly cousins or siblings for that matter as long as marriage maintains favorable treatment by society and government. I mean, if their benefits are going to be better by being married what's wrong with two widowed or single elderly siblings getting married, it's not like they're going to be making babies or anything. Actually, I think government should get completely out of the marriage business, that individuals should have the same rights and same benefits, married or single.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Huh. I don't remember that.

Let's see what actual facts might contribute here. A search of the LexisNexis news media database, restricted to major newspapers and broadcasters from November 2003 to February 2004 (well in advance of the election) produced just over one hundred hits. A few at random:

Clearly this is false.

It may or may not be, but coming deadline man, he was ambiguous. I fricken heard him, on radio, on tv at that time instead of saying yes or no, he was being obscure. The News reports were obscure too, the ones I encountered. Going to polls, as far as I knew and as far as things had been reported where I am, the question was still open. Even the Newscasters were saying that. Perhaps at some point, he lead us to believe as opposed to his other expressions, that there was still leeway on the subject within his party.

I also remembered a Newcast saying that late 90's, the Liberal party had said that they would not vote in favor of gay marriage so those who voted for them then were also voting in favor of that. Grrrr, either I am getting sloppy reporting, you are or the Liberal party was indeed being ambiguous.

While some polls show it closer than others, virtually every serious poll on the matter over the past ten years has a majority of Canadians supporting the right to same-sex marriage. (Including one conducted by Focus on the Family, which they declined to report in their mail-outs to members.)

So here too the facts appear inconsistent with your claim.

That doesn't matter because that's not what I meant. Marriage affects 100% of the population, 97% of the population being heterosexual. Whether the heterosexual population agrees with the decision or not does not mean that 3% hasn't dictated to the population what marriage is or isn't.

[Sweetie]

http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/equal-marriage.htm

What I have lost touch with is whether or not it went to vote. How did that work.

It sounds like he promised it would go to vote, but then he's clear on his stance on the subject. The only question is whether or not it went to vote, and I think it did, correct?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

1) Making assumptions about what percentage of the population is "homosexual" is shaky at the best of times. There is no stable survey that can give a half-decent answer at this point in time.

You just don't like it because the actual speculations are so low as opposed to the obviously bloated figures most like to toss around, the 10%.

2) I bet they said the same thing when slavery was abolished. Because, y'know, only people who are gay can support and want gay marriage. Other human beings don't campaign for human rights for their fellows.

I've argued this case over and over and over and over again. I've been able to detangle your entangling slavery on this issue, I've managed to decimate a few arguments that you take for granted. Ultimately, the only claim that stands in the end is that we should go from the traditional definition to an alternate one because that's what they want.

You can't support Indigenous rights if you're white. Only the minority percent of Australia's Indigenous population can do that. Oh, and when the majority Protestant population of the US decides to take away the Catholic right to marry, you can just STFU, kthx. Because they're just a minority and not allowed to dictate their own human rights and their basic right to be the equal of the others in their country, for no other reason than they're a minority. And when they decide to deny licenses to Latinos, same there. They're just a minority, and therefore not allowed to be granted basic equality. Damn straight. Minorities aren't allowed to ask for anything. They should just STFU and allow the rest of us to live off the fat of their oppression.

For fuck's sake, Sweetie. Do you ever think about the retarded shit that comes from your fucked-up pathetic little brain? Dumbarse Catholic bitch...

I'm not a narrow-minded feminist whore, or wanna be whore at the very least.

Do you ever encounter any valid ideas outside of the ones you concoct in that super duper know everything brain of yours? You think Conservatives don't have at least one good argument up their sleeve and you think you've got it all figured out?

You think the crap you have proferred at the moment ultimately has any merit? Think again. I've managed to sway a few people to my side on this gay marriage thing, I could sway a few others. The position is not as bankrupt as you would like to think.