Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Bleeding Red · 12-09-2004, 11:47 AM

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.

12-09-2004, 11:47 AM	#10
Bleeding Red Powerplay Quarterback Join Date: Oct 2001 Exp:	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.