June 29, 2005

• Good news. Piss poor post.
• This is heartening news. I have yet to determine how gay people being able to marry endangers me in any way. Good for Canada. It'll never happen in the U.S.
• Never is a long time cynnbad. Hooray!!
• More newsy links. You know, I would dislike Harper a lot less if he didn't seem so obsessed with trying to prevent a few people from having some cake, getting some presents, and promising to love and take care of each other for the rest of their lives.
• It already happened in Mass. and it will obviously happen everywhere in the US, probably sooner rather than later. This is very good news, but no need for knee jerk US-bashing.
• >Never is a long time cynnbad. Yeah- we've *already* elected a Catholic president. Heck, many women in this country now openly wear pants! Why, at this rate we'll have gay marriages before our sun exhausts its nuclear fuel and becomes a cold, dead carbon cinder, five billion years from now! Sorry- I know- got to keep hoping. Cheers Canada!!
• I agree with stirfry. But today, at least, the curve drags this post way up there.
• And, since this just had to go on the front page, could we pretend that the opposition isn't entirely stupid?
• Hooray! Three cheers for flexibility and dancing! Fifty-first century, here we come!
• That's a lot of pretending, Smo, since the opposition is, uh, entirely stupid.
• Eh, I'd feel worse about the post if it didn't directly follow on one about hummus that references a self-link. When the others get called piss poor, I'll believe it's because of a genuine commitment to FPP quality, and not a bit of aggravation over this particular bit of news. (Anyway, it's my first-ever newsfiltery or self-indulgent post and frankly, I don't regret a word of it - especially since I didn't say anything negative about the Opposition or any opposition to the law in my post. So there.) More cheerfully because I am cheerful and love everybody right now, even the haterz: tensor, you fucking RAWK for referencing that. *loves*
• This may be newsfilter, but it's important news I think. And it's good news (to me anyway) which I always welcome. I once tried to have a "Good News Only" blog, but it was a LOT of work to find good stuff.
• Yay for the gay!
• Shall I move to the US? I've lived in the Netherlands, Belgium and now in Canada. I see a patern there.
• Mare: Doooo iiiiit!!
• And, since this just had to go on the front page, could we pretend that the opposition isn't entirely stupid? Of course they aren't stupid. Their leader just apparently doesn't support basic human rights or our constitution. That's much worse than being stupid.
• So much for our beaver-trapping heritage.
• Now women can beaver trap, too.
• No, PB, we've embraced beavers! It's making our heritage stronger! And Mare, I must also say: DO IT! And to everyone else, I am sorry if this post causes any trouble, let's not since tracicle's off doing another joyful thing in birthing a wee babe. So, um, less of the Harper sucks and more of the OMG Canada REWLS let's have GAY ORGIES sort of thing? /off to bed
• To have the state recognize your union as a "marriage" -- a word that means a lot to many religious people -- qualifies as a "basic human right?" Guess we have different ideas about that. And to take issue with our constitution, the audacity! It's always right. "Inerrant," even. Whatever. Mock them all you want for their closed-mindedness.
• Yes, Smo, it is a human right - or so at least our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says. We are not suposed to discriminate by gender, which has been interpreted to include sexual orientation. Marriage means a great deal to non-religious people as well, including myself. Marriage means being able to see the person you love when they are in the hospital, to be a parent to their children, to be able to buy a house together, to keep that house should they predecease you, to be able to emmigrate to their country. All of these rights that heterosexual people take for granted - these are rights denied to gay people in most places in the world. How would you react if Canada had laws against marrying someone of a different race? The issue is no different. And Harper wishes to not only deny those rights, but to go against the most important laws in Canada, our constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, solely for the desire to prevent a minority from sharing in the rights held by the majority of Canadians. I will not mock him for his close-mindedness, I will censure him for his evil mindedness. I have never been a fan of Paul Martin, but he was absolutely correct when he explained why a government cannot in good conscience suspend the Charter to impinge on the rights of a minority. It wasn't right when the Quebec government did it - it would be far worse for the federal government to. The Charter exists to protect the rights of all Canadians.
• Collective rights exist too. Like the right to have good public healthcare. Or to have a Charter of right that is binding to individials and businesses, not just government.
• Or, you know, the right to impose a constitution to 7 million people. (/bitter)
• Oh and for the record, I'm happy same-sex couples get to marry. Too bad the Liberals couldn't get it done when they had the majority.
• Too bad they had to do it just as I was contemplating to leave Canada. Oh, my dear country, the one I chose. After all these years you still tempt me so.
• oh great, now they'll start reproducing. oh, wait... seriously though, YAY!
• When did Harper declare his opposition to civil unions? I must have missed it.
• Civil unions are not marriage. So only allowing gays to have civil unions would be discriminatory. Unless, of course, you pass a law saying that from now on, all marriages are civil unions. I would be for that. Churches would still be able to perform marriages, and people could call themselves married, but everyone's status to the state would be civil union. Not that that would actually stop gay marriages, because there are plenty of churches and religious groups willing to perform marriages. You might have noticed, but the first recognised gay marriages in Ontario were performed by right of the banns, called by a church.
• So in other words, it would be pointless.
• If it were pointless, we'd already have replaced all marriages with civil unions. So there must be a point.
• Today, we are all gay.
• To have the state recognize your union as a "marriage" -- a word that means a lot to many religious people -- qualifies as a "basic human right?" You know, Smo, there are an awfull lot of religious gay people out there. Would you deny them their right and religious duty to marry the person they love? See, that's the thing about the gay marriage debate. It's not a battle between religious people and gay people; it's a battle between some big religions and some small religions. There are some big religions who want to impose restrictions on the state and on every other religion. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if we allow the charter to be ignored becuase some religions don't like a minority group then what's to stop other religions objecting to other minorities on religious grounds? Overrulling the charter on this issue would not only be wrong: it would set the precident that no minority is protected in Canada, as long as the group that hates it can scrape enough MPs together to pass supressionary laws.
• I think all of us Canadians deserve a self-congratulatory pat on the back this morning, for dragging our leaders out into the bright light of reality. *pats self on back* So now all couples can marry, from coast to coast to coast. Why anyone would want to get married in the first place, I have no idea, but I fully support anyone's right to do so. Yay!
• To have the state recognize your union as a "marriage" -- a word that means a lot to many religious people Freedom of religion is a basic human right in the United States. Not all religions define marriage as between a man and a woman. Why should your religion's definition of marriage be enshrined as law, while another's is not?
• We're married gay Canajuns. We dance like rabid Cajuns. We do routines and chorus scenes Instead of war a-wagin'. We dine well here in Canada. We eat ham and jam and spamada. On second thought, let's not go to Canada. It is a silly place. *clops coconut shells together, gallops off*
• Or rabid Arcadians, so t' speak.
• To have the state recognize your union as a "marriage" -- a word that means a lot to many religious people -- qualifies as a "basic human right?" Marriage has a legal definition in Canada, as well as a religious definition. It is only the legal definition that has changed. Religions are still free to discriminate, as they always have been (and hopefully always will be).
• DO NOT BLAS-PHEME!
• If it were pointless, we'd already have replaced all marriages with civil unions. So there must be a point. posted by Mr. Knickerbocker at 01:09PM UTC on June 29, 2005 I guess my point about it being pointless is that some people want to give gay couples civil unions, instead of marriage, because they want to keep the magic M word to themselves. I say that's not in the spirit of the charter - it's separate, and separate is not equal - they may be equal to begin with, but they could soon not be. So you have to give everyone civil unions. But that still wouldn't stop gay marriages, not even gay religious marriages, because as Dreadnought points out, there are churches and religious groups who want to perform religious gay marriages. But it might stop Dreadnought and I, who are having a civil marriage in a few weeks, from being considered married (since the state definition is all we have). So all kind of pointless, which is why we aren't all going civil union.
• Would you deny them their right and religious duty to marry the person they love? Actually, I don't think there's much about "love" being necessary for marriage in the Bible. I think it's mostly about begatting and property rights and treaty-making, and a suitable outlet for base animal urges. Except for Song o' Solomon. That's some hot shit there.
• So glad to see this thread didn't explode overnight...cheers to all. (also, self-preservation whew) Oh, and I think I just might have to have tensor's babies. That was the best line ever! Doctor Who all over my thread! *still on a high from yesterday*
• You go girl -- not hungover, still high, great.
• "Overrulling the charter on this issue would not only be wrong: it would set the precident that no minority is protected in Canada, as long as the group that hates it can scrape enough MPs together to pass supressionary laws." This decision sets the precedent that no minority "religious group" is protected in Canada, as long as the group that hates it can scrape enough MPs together to pass suppressive laws. When the constitutional challenges against the right for the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Mormon or Evangelical churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong are before the Supreme Court of Canada will you stand up for their rights to believe as they will or will these faiths be legislated to change how and what they teach and think? Marriage is about to have a different “legal” meaning in Canada regardless of what anyone believes it to mean. This truly is dangerous ground we are all treading on. If this was once a battle for equality then the government should have changed how it distributes benefits to and recognizes all relationships instead of legislating a definition on a religious principle. Civil unions and common law relationships hold all the same temporal rights that traditional marriage does. This whole issue has gone beyond marriage equality to a legal battle over whose rights trump whose.
• Yay fish tick!
• What rocket88 said. Even the issue of rights aside, it is in the interest of the state to promote stabilizing institutions, and marriage, though not entirely reliable on that front, is generally more of a social stabilizer than not. Especially because it confers upon spouses a big group of rights that are denied those who are non-married.
• Well yay for Canada. Thanks a lot, canucks, now we look even worse down here.
• it confers upon spouses a big group of rights that are denied those who are non-married. Benefits, not rights. Tax breaks, smooth estate planning pathways and shared health insurance are benefits.
• squeak -- point of clarification -- common law relationships do NOT have "all the same temporal rights that traditional marriage does", at least not in Ontario. Common law spouses are not entitled to a distribution of property of the marriage upon separation or death. They may, however, be entitled to support obligations, if they fit the criteria (either three years of continuous cohabitation, or that they are in "a relationship of some permanance", when a child is involved). In short, common law spouses are shafted when it comes to property (which is a good chunk of what legal marriage is all about). I think there may be a misunderstanding here as to when Constitutional challenges can be raised. The Charter ONLY applies to government activity -- here being the issuing of marriage licences, the performance of civil ceremonies, and the application of property and support regulations. The Charter does not apply to private acts. As such, a Constitutional challenge on church teaching or celebration is impossible. The only option would be to bring a complaint under ordinary human rights legislation, but even there, the human rights commissions will not intrude into the private practices of any religious group (at least on the level that we're discussing here -- a church as an employer will still be subject to H.R. legislation). In short, I'm not sure I see what the problem is -- the definition of legal marriage has been broadened, but there's nothing forcing any religious group to recognize that broader definition. Simply put, the recognition of gay marriage is for governmental purposes only. I don't see any 'trumping' of one right over another. The right of equality has been preserved, and the right to freedom of religion has been preserved as well. So everybody's happy, right?
• I'm happy!
• When the constitutional challenges against the right for the Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Mormon or Evangelical churches to teach that homosexuality is wrong are before the Supreme Court of Canada will you stand up for their rights... Yes, I will.
• Thanks for the clarification points Capt. The Delwin Vriend case back in 1998 is one I've heard cited many times as the example of how religious rights are losing out over an individuals rights. Now this case fits into the Church as an employer category that you pointed out. But many view this particular case and the Gay marriage issue as an attack on longstanding religious principles. Now this may just be a semantics game but the government doesn’t perform “Marriage” in the religious context but rather in the context of monetary, custody and property rights (please correct me again if I am wrong) and since groups have been successful in changing this religious definition, with the argument that a civil union is not equal to a marriage then what principle is next? Morality, what changes can be made to the definition of morality? Cruelty, what constitutes a cruel act? What specific doctrines can be singled out and challenged as a hate crimes or what Holy books can be defined as hate literature because they teach that homosexuality is wrong. With this legislation being passed as it is written it sets the stage for future challenges against religious principles and teachings. This may seem like a far stretch of reason but the potential is there. This legislation does not do enough to protect the rights of religious institutions to teach and act on principles without fear of reprisal.
• In reading my last post it makes me think that what is really at stake here is that tolerance is being legislated, people don't work that way it has to be taught, learned and applied but until that happens all sides in the fight will be at odds whenever the opportunity arises. /gets off soapbox and goes back to quiet thought.
• From the text of Bill C-38: "3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." In fact, this has always been the case. Catholic churches, for example, are free to refuse to marry two people who have not been baptised Catholic without fear of discrimination charges.
• >what is really at stake here is that tolerance is being legislated, people don't work that way it has to be taught, learned and applied When prejudice and discrimination are expressed in your culture, you can fight them with education and hope that over time people's hearts will change. However, when prejudice and discrimination are expressed in your legal system, it's time to make some new laws. It's not an either-or proposition. >This legislation does not do enough to protect the rights of religious institutions to teach and act on principles without fear of reprisal. Speaking as a citizen of the country just south of Canada, I must say, that's a real knee-slapper. How about if we begin by protecting the powerless from the powerful, and then see what further adjustments might be necessary?
• ... since groups have been successful in changing this religious definition ... Since you seem intent on calling this new law a change in the "religious definition" of marriage, perhaps you can clarify whether you think that marriage is wholly a religious construct? For instance, do you think atheists can marry even if no religious institution sanctifies their marriage? Furthermore, even if one grants your point that this law changes the religious definition of marriage (and I don't grant it), do you consider religion and religious practices to be, as an empirical matter, unchanging? If not, do you think they should be unchanging? Morality, what changes can be made to the definition of morality? Cruelty, what constitutes a cruel act? Do you consider those questions not worth asking? Too risky to ask? (Also, what definition of morality?)
• It's not a battle between religious people and gay people; it's a battle between some big religions and some small religions. There are some big religions who want to impose restrictions on the state and on every other religion. When prejudice and discrimination are expressed in your culture, you can fight them with education and hope that over time people's hearts will change. However, when prejudice and discrimination are expressed in your legal system, it's time to make some new laws. It's not an either-or proposition. Thank you both for putting into words some vague thoughts that have been kicking around in my head. Those are both wonderful arguments for doing the right thing. And also, Yay!!
• Now this may just be a semantics game but the government doesn’t perform “Marriage” in the religious context but rather in the context of monetary, custody and property rights (please correct me again if I am wrong) Actually, no, in Canada, the government doesn't perform marriages as such, but it does decide which marriages are legitimate for legal purposes. The actual perforamce of marriages is farmed out to various different groups which include, but are not limited to, some religious institutions. What's happening in this case is that various institutions are coming to the government and saying 'we want to marry same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples'. The government is now saying 'ok, fine'. However, some big powerful religious groups are trying to stop this being allowed. Now, keep in mind that the government isn't forcing these groups to mary same sex couples. It's merely not banning other groups from doing so. Note that this issue is entirely separate from the debate about hate speech you allude to above. In fact, the argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to restrictions on religion is entirely backwards. Banning gay marriage is the restriction on religion; allowing gay marriage upholds the rights of minority religions as well as minorities in the more general sense.
• Nicely said, Dreadnought.
• what is really at stake here is that tolerance is being legislated, people don't work that way it has to be taught, learned and applied Legislating gay unions IS the application. Obviously a majority of people have been taught and have learned tolerance. Now the rest will have the lessons in front of them on a daily basis. When something becomes everyday, then it's no longer strange and fearful.
• Civil unions are not equal to marriage, because by having different legal terms, it is too easy for future governments to either restrict the benefits of civil unions, or to grant benefits to marriage that they deny to civil unions (see Denmark's situation). It is analagous to the problem with segregation - separate rarely means equal. Also, there is a freedom of religion issue, as members of some religions, including the United Church of Canada, which is not a small group. They want to be able to marry gay members of their congregations.
• I second r88 -- well said, Dreadnought.
• I tell you one thing, any heterosexual Canadian couples had better get married pretty damn sharpish, otherwise it'll be devalued and destroyed before you've even finished the honeymoon...
• Yep, reminds me of the bilingualism nonsense. French used to be such a special and precious language, but now that everybody in the whole country has access to it, it's just cheap and tawdry and makes a mockery of Francophones.
• *Looks around for Richer*
• *hides bitterly under rock from bitter Richer*
• You know, Smo, there are an awfull lot of religious gay people out there. Would you deny them their right and religious duty to marry the person they love? Read what I wrote. First comment. I support same-sex marriage. This news makes me happy. But I oppose smug superiority, especially when it's based on fallacious nonsense aimed at flimsy straw men.
• Apparently in Smo's world, disagreeing with and disliking the opposition is "smugly superior", even when that same opposition threatens the rights of other people.
• If you looked back at my comment, you would see that I was saying I would dislike Harper much less, if he weren't so adament on fighting the charter on this. I don't know if I would like him entirely - his politics are not my own - but I would at least respect him. I did respect him, until he started this. If he said he didn't believe in gay marriage, but at least believed in the Charter, that I could respect, though not agree with.
• Access to it? They have as much access to Chinese or Spanish. From a practical point of view, common languages are unavoidable, at least for now. You can't have a country with hundreds of official languages and have it work.
• Bwa-ha-ha. I was just making a very clumsy facetious parallel to the gay marriage thing, Richer. Most Anglos don't see bilingualism in terms of 'access' to French, at all, at all.
• Think I prefer the weather in Spain.
• Plus there are all those nekkid people running around. Hard to do that in the frozen wasteland that is Canada.
• First comment. I support same-sex marriage. This news makes me happy. But I oppose smug superiority, especially when it's based on fallacious nonsense aimed at flimsy straw men. You now what, Smo, I kind of see where you're coming from. It does seem a little ungracious to be crowing so loudly over a contentious political victory. But you've got to understand that as far as we're concerned, on this issue, one side is really, really right, and the other side is really, really wrong. One side wants to bring about freedom; the other side wants to bring about repression. One side wants to bring about equality; the other side wants to bring about second class status. I honestly say, without even a hint of exageration, that there is no argument against gay marriage that doesn't boil down to 'I don't like gay people'. If you want to test this hypothesis, lets hash through the argumnents. I know that's a big claim, but I think I can substantiate it. So this is a big deal to us: it's a victory for love over hate, tollerance over division, freedom over opression. And maybe it's only a small symbolic step, but it's the -last- step, the one which means that our society is (when the legislation is passed) fully legally equal for all normal Canadian citizens. So maybe we can go on tinkering with stuff from here, but the point is that there are no more officially sanctioned 'you and all your people suck' laws in Canada. I think that's a big deal, and worth crowing about.
• You now what, Smo, I kind of see where you're coming from. It does seem a little ungracious to be crowing so loudly over a contentious political victory. A contentious political victory, like the Civil rights act, or allowing women to vote.
• A contentious political victory, like the Civil rights act, or allowing women to vote. Quite so.
• This is a little late but Capt. Renault, thanks for that injection of teh legal expertise.
• No problem. It's what I do. Undercut my practice by giving it away for free.
• Apparently in Smo's world, disagreeing with and disliking the opposition is "smugly superior", even when that same opposition threatens the rights of other people. No. jb, your posts have shown that you don't know much of anything about Harper's position. Or maybe you don't care. Either way, if you're going to ridicule (or vote against) the other side, at least demonstrate that you've listened to what they have to say. It's way easier to make fun of the Conservatives for a position they've never advanced, but it makes you look terribly ignorant when you do it. Besides, I think it's just rude to take these cheap shots at a target that's largely undefended on MoFi. Now, if we take Harper's actual position, all that nonsense about the right to visit a loved one in the hospital -- and all the other privaleges attached to marriage -- none of it is at issue. The only thing at issue is whether same-sex couples ought to have their union recognized by the state as a "marriage." Still, I strongly support this. I believe the anti-gay marriage arguments -- the respectable ones -- are built on problematic Divine Command theory and pre-Darwinian (and, ultimately, fallacious) Natural Law thinking. In fact, I almost agree with Dreadnaught's claim that the opposition reflects a dislike of gay people, except I know a few people at work who weren't happy when gay marriage was legalized here in Saskatchewan, but they also knew and loved a gay coworker who recently passed away. These people disapproved of his sexual orientation, but at the same time, they were very good friends with him (and vice versa). A "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing. And, yeah, while I believe they're wrong to think of it as a sin, I wouldn't say they're "stupid," or worse, "evil." Would you?
• (And, yes, I know a few people who would like the state to get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to the churches. Just replace "marriage" with "civil union" for everyone in our laws. I can't say I have a problem with that, although I don't see it happening any time soon.)
• Harper clearly does not support equal recognition, or equality of religion, in standing against the rights of gays to have their unions recognised as "marriages". I've already said above why civil unions are not equal to "marriage", and several posters have pointed out that it isn't an issue of secular versus religious, but whether a few religions will dictate secular policy for other religions and non-religious people. I didn't say that someone who was uncomfortable with gay marriage was evil. They are probably prejudiced, but not evil. I would know better if I talked to them. I once had a long conversation with an elderly relative who was against gay marriage, who swore that she liked gay people and just was against the "redefinition" of marriage (as if marriage hasn't already been redefined 6 million times in human history) - but in her conversation she showed that for all her protestations that she had gay friends, she held deep seated prejudices against gay people. Gay people holding hands in the street (in Soho, of all places!) were "forcing their lifestyle on her", gay people only wanted to marry "to mock marriage" (so, so far from the truth). She wasn't interested in the least in understanding why they wanted to marry, which is, of course, for the same reasons that straight people want to marry. What I did say was that someone who would use his power to subvert the Charter and basic equality was evil.
• but in her conversation she showed that for all her protestations that she had gay friends, she held deep seated prejudices against gay people Ok, jb, that is a falacious argument. Just because one person was against gay marriage because they were prejudiced against gays, it doesn't follow that all people are so inclined. Indeed, I would speculate that there's plenty of people out there who are against gay marriage without being prejudiced against gays at all. These people are simply mistaken about the nature of the debate because they havn't thought everything through. It's very easy to fall into this camp when the anti-gay marriage lobby has so many persuasive people willing to put forward deceptive arguments (vis 'legalised gay marriage will inevitably lead to mandatory gay marriage, which will be an infringement of religious freedom'). while I believe they're wrong to think of it as a sin, I wouldn't say they're "stupid," or worse, "evil." Would you? No, I agree, very probably they are neither stupid or evil. Indeed, I actually don't have a problem with people who think that gay sex is sinful any more than I have a problem with people who think that eating pork is sinful. ==However== As soon as those personal feelings are imposed on others, as soon as they step into the public realm, these people are doing something that's wrong, wrong, wrong. By supporting systematic discrimination against gay people, by supporting the repression and inequality of other people's religion, these people are supporting something that is evil. By exerting political pressure in support of these evil laws, they are committing an evil act. Love the sinner, as you say, hate the sin.
• This business about equality of religion is a tough one. If you believe that your religion is the correct one, that not all religions are equal, then I can see why you'd oppose this. To many of these people, homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't matter why gay couples want to marry. It's a sin. Period. The state shouldn't support and celebrate it -- which, for them, is what this amounts to -- any more than it should celebrate fraud. These people are simply mistaken about the nature of the debate because they havn't thought everything through. I think this is true, for the most part.
• was stted before, it won't happen in the U.S Regardless of anything you argue. We simply won't have it.
• Sorry, I,m basing "the end" on U.S. based.
• It's not about rights. Civil or otherwise. It will not happen because it's WRONG. and EVIL. And that is the glorious legacy I am steeped in, every day of my perplexing life.