Canadian Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage

[Cowperson]

The Liberals have promised rapid legislation to legalize same sex marriage if the Supreme Court came through this morning - and the Supreme Court did.

Canada's top court says Ottawa has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.

It's expected a vote on legalizing gay weddings would narrowly pass even without the support of several Liberals and the Conservatives.

Is this a good or bad development?

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...13-4163b1a9f025

Cowperson

[icarus]

Here is the reference, released this morning:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/r...scc079.wpd.html

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Yet ANOTHER reason for Americans to make fun of Canada... if they happen to even find this story hanging out there.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Dec 9 2004, 03:43 PM
Yet ANOTHER reason for Americans to make fun of Canada... if they happen to even find this story hanging out there.

Its already on the front page of CNN, MSNBC, etc.

By the way, the Supreme Court did not say the government is required to do it, something the Liberals were hoping for. The Court only said they could if they wanted to.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't see why any non-gay people even care. There's a lot of things I don't like, but I don't think should be illegal.

And no, it doesn't mean that churches will be forced to marry gay people. I know that is what a lot of fear mongers say.

[FlamesAddiction]

A lot of gay people believe in God, and some sects welcome gay people.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to get married in the first place -in a church or otherwise. It's an ancient tradition that has been for a long time obsolete in our society. As proven by the high number of divorces since divorce has become acceptable, commitments have nothing to do with marriages.

But hey, if it's legal for straight people to engage in the tradition, I see no reason why gay people shouldn't.

[photon]

On the radio this AM they said that the court decision mentioned that religious organizations wouldn't be obligated to perform same sex marriages.

The interesting thing is if Alberta will try to use the notwithstanding clause to opt out. Since the court worded this as an option for the fedral govt. rather than an obligation may the door be left open for that?

[Natt]

I'm glad with what's happening so far. I find it a little irritating when some people go on about the "sanctity of marriage between a man and woman" how it is sacred and gays getting married might ruin it.
Nah, it was ruined a long time ago when people like Britney Spears could get married in Vegas for less than two days just for the hell of it don't you think?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 9 2004, 04:34 PM
I don't see why any non-gay people even care.

Because some people are against discrimination of any type. Because legislation can help change the attitudes of the public on this issue. There are certainly homophobes out there (I meet quite a lot) and until it becomes accepted to a larger degree gay people will be forced to deal with insults, discrimination, etc. Making it legally acceptable is one step towards changing public opinion IMO. Another reason some might be against it is because the classical definition of marriage is basically a Christian idea/principle. Those who want to see complete separation of state and religion would want to see laws based solely on a religious idea to be changed in favour of a more logical definition.

I don't buy any of the arguments against gay marriage. I see legalizing it as an obvious step for a progressive, forward thinking nation.

No offense but your attitude in that quote comes across as, "why should I care about anybody's viewpoint if it differs from my own?". Not much sympathy or understanding of differing opinions in that stance. Some people aren't just looking out for strictly their own interests and viewpoints.

[Bleeding Red]

I think it has less to do with the sancitity of marriage than three other legal issues.

1- What legal rights were gays being denied that married couple had? There was a time not too long ago that married people got tax breaks, spousal benefits (corporate health plans), and inheritance benefits. I think legal contracts, progressive companies, and governments worked towards solving this issue.

2- The slippery slope - Those that try to draw a line from homosexuality to beastiality need to come to terms with reality - I think they are nuts. BUT - I think a reasonalbe argument could be made by drawing a line from gay marriage to polygamy (multipule wives) - If marrage is no longer legally sexually defined why should it be numerically defined?

3- What if religious leaders refuse to perform the ceremony? Even though the SC mentioned this issue, it is still a concern. The purpose of the whole exercise is to make a point and though we may question why a gay couple would insist beyond all rational reason (in our minds) to get married in an sanctuary by a religious leader who believes with all his/her heart that the couple is an abomination, the couple may and can take it to court regardless of what the SC writes. They can argue that since gay marriage is legal, refusing to perform the ceremony is descriminatory and illegal (they will lose since for example RC priests can refuse to marry a couple where one spouse is not RC)

Regardless what a minority Liberal gov. does, the argumant will be around for the long haul.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by fotze@Dec 9 2004, 06:53 PM
The slippery slope argument has never made sense for everything. How about we put the line after gay marriage and keep it there. It was just in front of it there and it didn't slip down. When have lines just slipped down uncontrollably. If society needs to move the line down they will decide at that time, the line won't just get self-actuallization and start legazlizing marrying Liza Minelli.

Yes, it is a weak argument, BUT- In the world of litigation where one case influences others' actions, the slippery slope happens. Do you think fast food chains would have voluntarily printed "very hot" on all their hot food/drink pakaging if McDonald's had not lost the lawsuit to that woman in Texas who spilled her coffee? How about WASP males trying to get minority status? As crazy as some things seem, they happen - the proof is on this board every day we post articles about people not having a clue or just going too far.

It is not that far fetched for a Mormon who wants to practice polygamy to argue discrimination in front of the courts once gay marrage is law. Once again - if defining marriage by sexuallity is discrimination, why is defining it by numbers NOT discrimination?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Dec 9 2004, 10:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Dec 9 2004, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Because some people are against discrimination of any type. Because legislation can help change the attitudes of the public on this issue. There are certainly homophobes out there (I meet quite a lot) and until it becomes accepted to a larger degree gay people will be forced to deal with insults, discrimination, etc. Making it legally acceptable is one step towards changing public opinion IMO. Another reason some might be against it is because the classical definition of marriage is basically a Christian idea/principle. Those who want to see complete separation of state and religion would want to see laws based solely on a religious idea to be changed in favour of a more logical definition.

I don't buy any of the arguments against gay marriage. I see legalizing it as an obvious step for a progressive, forward thinking nation.

No offense but your attitude in that quote comes across as, "why should I care about anybody's viewpoint if it differs from my own?". Not much sympathy or understanding of differing opinions in that stance. Some people aren't just looking out for strictly their own interests and viewpoints.[/b]

You completely missed his point.

He was referring to why non-gay people would object to legalization.

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Dec 9 2004, 08:34 AM
There's a lot of things I don't like, but I don't think should be illegal[/quote]

[RougeUnderoos]

BleedingRed said:

They can argue that since gay marriage is legal, refusing to perform the ceremony is descriminatory and illegal (they will lose since for example RC priests can refuse to marry a couple where one spouse is not RC)

That covers that argument right there. Churches, all of them, have always been allowed to refuse to marry people. I'm not even allowed in the building in Cardston if I want to get married (to a woman) there, let alone convince someone to marry me to another man.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:04 AM
Once again - if defining marriage by sexuallity is discrimination, why is defining it by numbers NOT discrimination?

Because the Constitution says you can't be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality. It does not, however, give a blanket right to practice any lifestyle choice you feel like

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Dec 9 2004, 07:10 PM
BleedingRed said:

They can argue that since gay marriage is legal, refusing to perform the ceremony is descriminatory and illegal (they will lose since for example RC priests can refuse to marry a couple where one spouse is not RC)

That covers that argument right there. Churches, all of them, have always been allowed to refuse to marry people. I'm not even allowed in the building in Cardston if I want to get married (to a woman) there, let alone convince someone to marry me to another man.

I think the difference is that you won't take them to court. I do not know if the "Church's right to refuse" has ever been challanged in court. Most people think ok he won't marry us and we can't get married there - we will just get married by a JP in the park. Then there is the issue of religious grounds (two different faiths) vs sexuality (same religion and same sex).

Just because we would never think of going to court over this don't think someone else has - just so they can get headlines and make a point.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 11:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 11:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I do not know if the "Church's right to refuse" has ever been challanged in court. [/b]

The Supreme Court just said in this very ruling that a church has the right to refuse to marry homosexuals.

<!--QuoteBegin-Supreme Court of Canada
Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs[/quote]

Case closed.

[CrzyCanuck]

So who will pair up with the minority liberals to get this passed? Free vote? Bring down the government?

(I' like getting my news from CP!)

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 9 2004, 07:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 9 2004, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 11:04 AM
Once again - if defining marriage by sexuallity is discrimination, why is defining it by numbers NOT discrimination?

Because the Constitution says you can't be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality. It does not, however, give a blanket right to practice any lifestyle choice you feel like [/b][/quote]
YET.

FOTZE wrote "If society needs to move the line down they will decide at that time"

Remember sexuality in the constitution is a recent thing. If society decides that polygamy is ok, then which lifestyle is next? (thoretically)

Also, your comment is not entirely accurate - you can choose to live a single lifestyle, a comunal llifestyle, a hedonistic lifestyle, a pagan lifestyle - freedom of religion, choice, to assemble, consenting adults, etc.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Mike F+Dec 9 2004, 07:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Dec 9 2004, 07:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The Supreme Court just said in this very ruling that a church has the right to refuse to marry homosexuals.

<!--QuoteBegin-Supreme Court of Canada
Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs

Case closed. [/b][/quote]
First - this is not a ruling - it's advice and opinion given to the government at the Librals request.

Second - it does not prevent an activist couple for taking the issue to court for a ruling. Some argumants I would put forth against the religious leaders are - do you allow homosexuals to pray in your sanctary? Do you offer them counseling? Does the counseling involved only deal with changing sexuality? Do you preform marraiges of converts? the notion being that if you accept them as they are then you must marry them as they are - your religious beleifs are flexible.

I know it all seems cut and dried - allow gay marriages but don't force religious leaders to perform them - but that is not how the world works, someone always wants to make a point or be the pioneer or prove that they are right and someone else is wrong.

live in interesting times.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:29 PM
Remember sexuality in the constitution is a recent thing. If society decides that polygamy is ok, then which lifestyle is next? (thoretically)

Thats sort of an odd argument. If society decides polygamy is acceptable then polygamy is acceptable to society. After that, who knows. Whatever society then deems acceptable will be acceptable to society.

If society (the majority of it's people anyway) decide that something is right and fair and acceptable, shouldn't the laws of that society reflect that?