Same Sex Marriage

[RTRD]

First of all...

So then you are saying that I can't use my Ontario drivers license anywhere but Ontario? Obviously that's not correct.

Same concept here. I'm not suggesting that my Ontario drivers license gives me a right to drive at Ontario speed limits in Texas, it just means that I can drive in Texas following their driving rules, standards and laws.

Canada and the USA has an agreement to recognize marriages performed in the others jurisdictions ... of course recognition applies only to laws concerning married people ... so for instance they couldn't be arrested for having sex, unless that sex was also outlawed between married hetros ... so in a state where oral sex might be ok, but anal sex might be against the law, the fact that they are married would give them protection to perform oral sex but if anal sex were outlawed between straight couples then that law would still have to be "obeyed".

The lack of knowledge concerning laws, constitutions, and the democratic process by right wingers is amazing ... some of them actually believe that because THEY don't like the democratic process the law was created under that this means the law doesn't apply, and at the same time think that a law that they like, doesn't even require that it be understood completely, and that it should mean what they believe it should mean ... even if it doesn't.

It's like debating with two year olds ... "who cares what the facts are, I want things done 'my way' and I'll plug my ears and hold my breath until I turn purple until you get tired of trying to reason with me and just give up."

..I am hardly a right winger.

Secondly....since you know so damn much...you'd know that marriage is not legislated federally in the United States. I admit I know NOTHING about the treaty of which you speak, but I will bet ANYTHING I OWN that a gay marriage performed in Canada would not be recognized in the United States in those states that expressly forbid it. The states have no obligation to honor such a treaty, as marriage is state jurisdiction.

I absolutely GURANTEE you that no state that expressly forbids gay marriage would recognize a gay marriage...and would not provide any of the legal "benefits" of marriage (tax breaks, etc.). I am also certain the federal government would not either.

I don't know if there has been a case to test this yet...I would be curious to see if there has been one, I doubt it. I do know how it would turn out though.

What you've done here is twist "the facts" to suit your point, versus dealing in reality...which is that NO JUDGE ANYWHERE is going to recognize a marriage that is explictly ILLEGAL in his jurisdiction.

Like I said...just because it is legal to smoke canabus in some countries does not mean it is legal in others...and being from a country that it is legal would NOT provide cover. Gay marriage is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in 30+ states...not simply not performed there, but BANNED by the constitutions of those states. And as other have pointed out, there exist laws that EXPRESSLY make in plain that marriages performed in other jurisdictions that are illegal in the jurisdiction in question will not be recognized. Has anyone actually come out and said Canada would be part of this? Don't know...but you can bet your absolute last MPA dollar that it would only require some gay couple stupid enough to challenge the law to get it changed accordingly.

In other words....your desires don't out weigh the will of the majority of the people....

Two year old indeed...as I have said before, some people really make me ashamed to call myself a "liberal", a title that I used to wear proudly until "liberals" started deciding I was a "two years old" because I didn't agree with them....

"two year olds"...what an arrogant ass....

 

[Bud Plug]

There is no delusion in treating everyone equally, whether they are an apple or an orange

I hope you don't run a fruit stand for a living. Merry Christmas!

 

[Bud Plug]

Notwithstanding your preoccupation with the notwithstanding clause, my observation was really quite simple and linear. I also can't recall suggesting that "the only valid purpose of government is to encourage supposedly positive contributions". Those are your words - not mine. I simply disagree with your assertion "that differential treatment [of Canadians or groups of Canadians] can be justified on the basis of differences in social contribution". It is an unacceptable model for allocating benefits to Canadians.

Your statement may have been part of a larger argument but my disagreement is quite specifically directed at the statement itself, not the "whole fabric" you've wrapped yourself in. If your assertion has any validity, it should be able to stand on its own as well. Encouraging the desired behaviour from all Canadians is a common government practice ie: education is to be encouraged so students can deduct tuitions. And so on. But these encouragements are available to all. The examples you've used don't specifically address the sexual orientation issue. This is your most recent batch of examples:

"The State encourages all kinds of different behaviours in different ways. It encourages ingenuity by awarding patents. It encourages support of charities by granting tax credits. It encourages home grown businesses by various forms of small business development assistance. It encourages social service by the granting of the Order of Canada, etc. As far as I know, gay people are entitled to seek all of these various forms of incentive offered by the government."

As you've said, the above examples apply to all Canadians. So where are your examples of "differential treatment" based on race, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc.? If this differential treatment can so easily be applied to any one of these groups but not all, there must be a few examples.

Ok, you've tired me out with this one. It makes me feel like Rusty Griswald when he gets handed the ball of Christmas lights in Christmas Vacation. Merry Christmas!

 

[Bud Plug]

Actually, the DOMA applies to cases between US states, territories, possessions, etc ... the treaty between Canada and the USA, which recognizes marriages performed in each others jurisdiction, still applies, does not fall under the DOMA, and as far as I know has not been challenged ... you have an example of A Canadian gay couple not having their marriage recognized legally upheld?

By the way, there is a time to admit when you've lost a particular point http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh111.htm. This article is the most optimistic opinion (from the point of view of gays) that I could find. It confirms the legislative structure that others, who know better than you, have been trying to clue you in to.

 

[dreamer]

I hope you don't run a fruit stand for a living. Merry Christmas!

I realize that you are trying your best at being witty but it does not suit you.

 

[red]

Woolfe raises no intelligent point and your no smarter for agreeing with him. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and god. Not between a man and a man, not between a woman and a woman, not between a man and his pig. I'm not anti-gay, but Iam anti-gay-marriage.

so do you need god's permission to end the marriage? does god get a share of the marriage assets? does everyone who is divorced going to hell for breaking a covenant with god?

you may not think you are anti-gay, but you appear to be against treating them as equal human beings.

 

[red]

It says that (a) the two wings of the party do not share monolithic views on all issues; and (b) a certain homophobic attitude abounds within the Alliance wing of the Conservative caucus.

Neither of these points should come as a surprise to anyone.

its very unfortunate that the Alliance continues to have this "moral majority" attitude. if they would get the fuck out people's personal lives they would win a majority

 

[red]

You've certainly asked the right question. However, it isn't rhetorical.

The traditional answer is that it is in the best interests of Canadian society that Canadians give birth to children in order to replenish the labour pool. That's why a number of Canadian laws gave preferential treatment to heterosexual marriages - because they were viewed as the cornerstone of this process of raising the next generation of Canadian workers.

While we can debate whether Canadians should give such a high priority to the birth and raising of children (after all, immigration is an equally effective way of replenishing the labour pool), it's very difficult to say that gay relationships serve the same purpose in Canadian society.

In fact, the movement to recognize gay relationships as marriages is not founded on the assertion that these relationships serve the same social purposes as heterosexual relationships. Gay people simply want to feel "normal" in society. Presumably, many of them don't feel "normal" without having society confirm, in a variety of ways, that they are "the same" as straight people.

Obviously, it's become important to straight people, for reasons I can't comprehend, to want to tell gay people that they are the same as straight people.

how will recognizing gay marriages impede the "replenishment of the labour pool"? [i take it you don't actually have children- not sure anyone with kids would talk about them this way].

 

[red]

I really hate this Government and especially Harper, everything he believes in is contary to what I believe is integral to the Canadian identity. I think Harper is sexist, homophobic, racist and classist, it's absolutely incredible such a liberated country like ours, allowed for such a prick to be in charge. Can we send him to America??? We'll trade Harper for gay couples LOL

I believe a majority of intelligent reasonable Canadians think Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. If you don't agree with the Constitution, well... no one is making you commit to and/or attend a gay wedding, so keep your ignorance to yourself To quote Margaret Cho "any country who doesn't allow a gay man the right to bridal registry is just wrong" lol

BBK, Harper is already going that way... as a mixed minority single female he sends shivers down my spine.

he tries to appear to be moderate - but its worthy to note that he voted to open up this issue again

 

[red]

Ah, classic liberal commentary - if you don't agree with me, you must be "ignorant". So much for liberal=tolerant!

tolerance can not extend to those who would limit the freedoms of others.

 

[red]

Actually the majority of intelligent reasonable Canadians think gay marriage is an unnatural union. Most people keep quiet out of fear that they will be immediately labeled as homophobic. Canada is not as liberated as you think.

do you have a reference to a poll or survey to back up this statement?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

he tries to appear to be moderate - but its worthy to note that he voted to open up this issue again

I believe he voted to open up the issue to appeal to his party base. I don't think his heart was in the fight and the reason he allowed his caucus a free vote.

There was another reason he re-opened the debate. He promised he would do this during the election campaign. Following through on an election promise is a tough pill for the Libs to swallow.

At any rate, hopefully we can put this debate behind us and start to work on more important issues.

 

[Alexis696969]

I hope you don't run a fruit stand for a living. Merry Christmas!

After all it is fruitcake season !!!!! tsk tsk



ho ho ho merry xmas

 

[red]

I believe he voted to open up the issue to appeal to his party base. I don't think his heart was in the fight and the reason he allowed his caucus a free vote.

There was another reason he re-opened the debate. He promised he would do this during the election campaign. Following through on an election promise is a tough pill for the Libs to swallow.

At any rate, hopefully we can put this debate behind us and start to work on more important issues.

I would believe that if he voted against the motion

 

[Bud Plug]

tolerance can not extend to those who would limit the freedoms of others.

Wrong issue.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I would believe that if he voted against the motion

What, table the motion and then vote against it? The libs would have a field day with that one.

 

[red]

What, table the motion and then vote against it? The libs would have a field day with that one.

maybe. but he could say while he was respecting the campaign pledge he disagreed with the motion.

 

[red]

Wrong issue.

how so?

 

[johnhenrygalt]

What, table the motion and then vote against it? The libs would have a field day with that one.

Mulroney did this in the 1980s. He promised a free vote on capital punishment in the House and voted against it, but I agree with Harper's political judgement on the issue.

1. It was a campaign issue - he had to bring the vote to the House (and during the election campaign he made the right move in raising the issue on the first few days of the campaign, so that the Liberals couldn't create a surprise issue out of it just before the election.

2. Most of the Christian fundamentalists in the party are gathered around Stock Day. Harper opposed that group in the 2002 Canadian Alliance leadership campaign and defeated them. They rallied around Harper for the Conservative leadership against Stronach and Tom Long, but have never been comfortable with Harper. While Day is an ideologue, Harper is a politician who knows how to get things done.

3. Harper personally opposed gay marriage, but isn't prepared to make waves over it. Even though Harper voted for the motion, I doubt he wanted it to pass. Had it passed, the issue would be tied up in the courts again (remember that the Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of a prohibition on gay marriage), the status of existing gay marriages would be uncertain, and it would be an election issue next time around (which he doesn't want).