Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

photon · 12-07-2006, 11:59 PM

Surprised this isn't up yet. They said they'd do it so they did which is good I guess, and I'm glad it's done now rather than being an election issue.

I think he did it now so that he could appease those that voted for him because they thought he'd reopen this, but he knew it would never pass.

Quote:

OTTAWA — The last major threat to same-sex marriage rights in Canada was soundly defeated in the House of Commons today, with MPs sending the message that they don’t want to revisit the emotional, divisive debate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he heard the message and will respect it.
“We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we’ll accept the democratic result of the people’s representatives,” Harper said.
“I don’t see reopening this question in the future.”
The question put to MPs was whether they wanted to see legislation drafted to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, while respecting the existing marriages of gays and lesbians.
That Conservative motion failed 175-123.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...th=News/Canada

OILFAN #81 · 12-08-2006, 12:00 AM

I think that's disappointing. I don't think it's right to not recognize gay/lesbian weddings.

AC · 12-08-2006, 12:04 AM

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?

Mr.Coffee · 12-08-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

The fact that people oppose something like this so much appalls me. Who am I to say that two people love eachother can't get married because I don't agree with their lifestyles?

AGREED 100%.

This is a non-issue to me. If two people want to get married... great go for it. I don't care. It doesn't hurt me in anyway, and I don't see long-term drawbacks to letting some people marry.

Seriously. It's a religious thing again that is ... dare I say it... preventing society from adapting to change.

MrMastodonFarm · 12-08-2006, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

The way I see it, I'm not against gay marriage simply because I consider myself to be rational and tolerant of other people.

Ummm excuse me, if two consenting loving adults get married that means that one day down the road some nutzo might want to marry a horse. Gay people are responsible for that, not straight people.

Oh right, rational.

Yeah, let em get married, who cares.

evman150 · 12-08-2006, 01:32 AM

Good to see.

Hemi-Cuda · 12-08-2006, 02:36 AM

good to see Canadian politicians still have a little more sense than their brethern down to the south, at least on a couple issues

gay marriage doesn't impact me any whatsoever, so who am i to say anything against it?

Phaneuf3 · 12-08-2006, 03:20 AM

i support gay marriage. however, i think the legislation was passed too fast and adequate protections of religious beliefs aren't in there. i'd like to see more protection for say... a priest who refuses to perform gay mariages because its against his religion.

Caged Great · 12-08-2006, 04:12 AM

Geez, for anyone whose ever been married before, its always the same sex all the time...

Burninator · 12-08-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i support gay marriage. however, i think the legislation was passed too fast and adequate protections of religious beliefs aren't in there. i'd like to see more protection for say... a priest who refuses to perform gay mariages because its against his religion.

I could be wrong but I thought you couldn't force a priest two marry two gay people if the priest didn't want to. But in my opinion I don't see why the religion is even a factor as church and state are seperate.

But I think it's good that (hopefully) they put this issue to rest. I cannot believe how much time has been wasted on gay marriage. There are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed instead of issues like this, which should have been passed long before it originaly was.

Bring_Back_Shantz · 12-08-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

I think that's disappointing. I don't think it's right to not recognize gay/lesbian weddings.

I may be missing something in our post, short though it may be, but I think you misunderstood the article.

The vote that was defeated was whether or not they should scrap the same sex marriage law currently in place. The motion was defeated so the original legislation, that allows for same sex marriages, still stands.

They are recognizing gay/lesbian weddings, so if you support it, there isn't much to be disappointed about.

Phaneuf3 · 12-08-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I could be wrong but I thought you couldn't force a priest two marry two gay people if the priest didn't want to. But in my opinion I don't see why the religion is even a factor as church and state are seperate.

But I think it's good that (hopefully) they put this issue to rest. I cannot believe how much time has been wasted on gay marriage. There are so many more pressing issues that need to be addressed instead of issues like this, which should have been passed long before it originaly was.

that's what they're saying... but there's massive holes in this legislation that if one gay couple wanted to really make things messy and try to force a catholic priest to marry them, they could probably have a case

Winsor_Pilates · 12-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

that's what they're saying... but there's massive holes in this legislation that if one gay couple wanted to really make things messy and try to force a catholic priest to marry them, they could probably have a case

Very interesting. If this is true, then I agree with you.

Do you have any evidence or sources that show the holes in the legislation?

FireFly · 12-08-2006, 10:44 AM

Whether they can make a case or not, they would lose the case when it went to the supreme court. The preist would be able to say they were forcing him to do something against his religion. The gay couple can always go to a different preist/church/pastor to get married but the priest, if you force him to go against his beliefs, will never be able to take back what he feels would be a sin.

Reaper · 12-08-2006, 10:49 AM

Religious groups will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples nor do I think there will ever be a serious challenge by anyone who demands that a church perform a same sex marriage. This isn't the litigation happy United States, after all.

The issue I have is when Ralp Klein went on and on about how he would insure that no Marriage Commisioner would have to marry two people of the same sex if it disagreed with their religious beliefs. HELLO! Marriage Commissioners are public servants! If they don't want to apply the law equally in all their duties then they should resign. There is supposed to be a seperation between church and state. It would be like a police officer refusing to uphold drug laws because he/she felt that drugs should be legalized anyways. If you are unable to shelve your personal beliefs and follow the requirements of the job then you should find another line of work. To institutionalize the discrimination contravenes the civil rights of Canadians.

Flashpoint · 12-08-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

that's what they're saying... but there's massive holes in this legislation that if one gay couple wanted to really make things messy and try to force a catholic priest to marry them, they could probably have a case

My first thought - Good! Catholic priests have been forcing all kinds of crap on people for a thousand years. Time for a little payback. If a priest is going to be a bigot, they should be forced to deal with it.

A more rational thought is - why would anyone want do this? Because they want to make a life long bond with a loved one in a church where they wouldn't be welcomed? I doubt it.

People get married for a lot of reasons. Love being the big one. It may not last, but most weddings are a time of celebration.

RougeUnderoos · 12-08-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i support gay marriage. however, i think the legislation was passed too fast and adequate protections of religious beliefs aren't in there. i'd like to see more protection for say... a priest who refuses to perform gay mariages because its against his religion.

You cannot now, never were able to and never will be able to force a priest or anyone else to perform a wedding ceremony for a man and a woman if he didn't or doesn't want to do it. Why would it be any different for a same-sex couple?

I think this is a scare tactic cooked up by the religious crazies who are just trying to hang on to this resolved issue.

FlamingLonghorn · 12-08-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

My first thought - Good! Catholic priests have been forcing all kinds of crap on people for a thousand years. Time for a little payback. If a priest is going to be a bigot, they should be forced to deal with it.

A more rational thought is - why would anyone want do this? Because they want to make a life long bond with a loved one in a church where they wouldn't be welcomed? I doubt it.

People get married for a lot of reasons. Love being the big one. It may not last, but most weddings are a time of celebration.

I honestly don't see it as the priest being a bigot. It is against the Catholic faith to have same sex marriages. There will be plenty of places that will perform these ceremonies, why should the priest/rabbi/etc... have to perform a service against their beliefs. Many priests won't marry people who have not had prior marriages annulled by the church should we force them to do those marriages too? The priests still have the same rights as before...

rubecube · 12-08-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think this is a scare tactic cooked up by the religious crazies who are just trying to hang on to this resolved issue.

Well these are the same crazies who claim polygamy and incest are going to run rampant now that gay marriage is legal.

llama64 · 12-08-2006, 12:14 PM

Marriage is a civil economic agreement between two persons. This is all the government should recognize. Whatever extra meanings people want to attach to it are none of the government's concern. This is essential to keeping the separation between Church and State.

To deny gay/lesbian marriage is to deny that they are persons under the law, which would be in violation of the charter of rights. They can re-open this as many times as they like, but it will always be struck down unless they scrapped our constitution (something NO PARTY will ever do).

It's a dead issue. Why does it keep coming up?

** on a side note: Any religion can and should enforce it's own beliefs on the matter. If a Church doesn't want to approve of a marriage, it should have the full consitutional right to deny it. They should not be liable for discrimination for refusing (which is something some people are arguing for). **