Same-sex marriage legal in Manitoba

[Frank the Tank]

I'm super, thanks for asking!

Personally, for all of the fun i poke at gay people, I think they have the right to marry like any hetero couple out there. Thoughts everyone?

[octothorp]

So, that's Manitoba, BC, Ontario, and Quebec. I think we'll see Saskatchewan legalize it later this year or early next year, the maritime provinces do the in 2005/2006, and then Alberta in about 2012.

[calf]

Thorny issue.

Personally, I wish the government would indoctrine a seperation of church and state, which isn't the case in Canada. The word marriage is, IMHO, a religious word - it has several different religious connotations, is a word developed by different religions, which have been around longer than governments. I can totally see how churches get all riled up when 'gay marriage' gets thrown around, because that's their institution and goes against their beliefs - it's their right. If a certain church believes gay marriage is a-ok, then that's their right too.

What I think the government should do is instead of having 'marriage' licenses (a religious term), they should have 'civil unions' (or something along those lines) for all couples, gay and straight. Give all couples the same rights they'd have if they had a marriage license now.

My thoughts

[CaptainCrunch]

Calf is right. The reason why a lot of people, especially the older generation has a lot of problems with gay marriages is because the term marriage is based in religion.

A term like civic Union or something to that effect would probably ensure a smoother passage of any kind of legislation

[RougeUnderoos]

An lot of people apply zero religious signifigance to their wedding ceremony or marriage. It's a legal arrangement.

[RougeUnderoos]

Just for fun

marriage
1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry).

marry (v.)
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

marry (interj.)
a common oath in the Middle Ages, c.1350, now obsolete, a corruption of the name of the Virgin Mary.


What this proves exactly? Nothin'. But it's kinda cool.

Cool website: http://www.etymonline.com/

[troutman]

From the Marriage Act, Alberta

Preamble . . .

WHEREAS marriage between a man and a woman has from time immemorial been frimly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long standing philosophical and religious traditions; . . .

1(c.1) "marriage" means a mariage between a man and a woman.

There is no doubt the Alberta law is unconstitutional. Ralph has threatened to use the "notwithstanding" provisions of the Charter in resistance.

I think the next generation will not view this as an issue.

[troutman]

Originally posted by calf@Sep 16 2004, 07:37 PM
Thorny issue.

Personally, I wish the government would indoctrine a seperation of church and state, which isn't the case in Canada. The word marriage is, IMHO, a religious word - it has several different religious connotations, is a word developed by different religions, which have been around longer than governments. I can totally see how churches get all riled up when 'gay marriage' gets thrown around, because that's their institution and goes against their beliefs - it's their right. If a certain church believes gay marriage is a-ok, then that's their right too.

What I think the government should do is instead of having 'marriage' licenses (a religious term), they should have 'civil unions' (or something along those lines) for all couples, gay and straight. Give all couples the same rights they'd have if they had a marriage license now.

My thoughts

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Hey Hey kids, it's the devil's advocate.

I don't see how gay marriage is onconstitutional based on these tidbits.

It isn't descriminitory based on any of the above things such as race, sex, religion etc. If a gay man wants to marry a woman he can.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman so saying it is descrimintory to not allow two men to do it is like saying that not allowing 16 year olds to vote is unconstitutional. Some things require certain criteria be met.

Ie. to drink you must be 18.
To drive a car you must be 16 and have passed a driver's test
To vote you must be 18 and a citizen.
To get married, there must be a man and a woman.
I can't see the supreme court ever striking down the defintion of marriage if the provinces set it that way.

If something like that is challengable based on it being descriminatory, then isn't the citizenship criteria for voting subject to challenge? I mean we say you can't vote because you aren't a citizen of out country (ie, you're not from here) sounds to me like that is a clear case of descrimination based on country of origin, but even if it were challenged, it wouldn't ever be ruled unconstitutional because the privalege it provides is based on that chriteria.

ie. you can't vote without citizenship and being 18, you can't be 18 and a citizen and not be allowed to vote.

kinda like: you can't be get married without a consenting man/woman pair, and you can't be denied to be married if you are a consenting man/woman pair of age.

[peter12]

It kind of proves how pathetic our society can be when we get all worked up over this. How about turning all the nuts out there to some more important issues. Global poverty? Genocide? Terrorism?

Instead all we hear about is gay marriege, pros/cons.

[MarchHare]

Personally, I wish the government would indoctrine a seperation of church and state, which isn't the case in Canada. The word marriage is, IMHO, a religious word - it has several different religious connotations, is a word developed by different religions, which have been around longer than governments. I can totally see how churches get all riled up when 'gay marriage' gets thrown around, because that's their institution and goes against their beliefs

And yet those same religious people don't have such a fervor opposing two (hetero) atheists marrying.

Marraige may have been an institution with religious roots, but it's very much part of secular culture now. I certainly understand the civil union arguement, and to an extent I would support such a change, but I don't see the need for it.

[???]

times are changing slowly but surely and soon enough this will be looked on as being as stupid as segragated {sp} schools. beh let the gay people do what they want, just dont invite them to watch a stanley cup game "oh my god hes so hunky!" "he would look so good if he changed his hair" i swear its worse then watching it with women.

keep the religious aspect out of it and its kool. i dont see to many atheists getting married in a church.

[troutman]

I don't see how gay marriage is onconstitutional

Courts in four provinces have ruled it is unconstitutional. The precedent is established.

Yard said precedents set in other British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec weighed heavily in his decision. He noted that no less than 12 judges in Canada have been asked to consider the issue.

"The cumulative effect and the overwhelming effect of that judicial authority is to the effect that the traditional definition of marriage is no longer constitutionally valid in view of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said.

People of the same sex are being denied a right available to people of the opposite sex. This infringes s. 15 of the Charter.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by octothorp@Sep 16 2004, 01:30 PM
So, that's Manitoba, BC, Ontario, and Quebec. I think we'll see Saskatchewan legalize it later this year or early next year, the maritime provinces do the in 2005/2006, and then Alberta in about 2012.

Well, taking into account how far behind Alberta was in implementing Seat Belt laws I would imagine that it would be ten years after every other province legalized gay marriage.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Sep 16 2004, 02:38 PM
Hey Hey kids, it's the devil's advocate.

I don't see how gay marriage is onconstitutional based on these tidbits.

It isn't descriminitory based on any of the above things such as race, sex, religion etc. If a gay man wants to marry a woman he can.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman so saying it is descrimintory to not allow two men to do it is like saying that not allowing 16 year olds to vote is unconstitutional. Some things require certain criteria be met.

Ie. to drink you must be 18.
To drive a car you must be 16 and have passed a driver's test
To vote you must be 18 and a citizen.
To get married, there must be a man and a woman.
I can't see the supreme court ever striking down the defintion of marriage if the provinces set it that way.

If something like that is challengable based on it being descriminatory, then isn't the citizenship criteria for voting subject to challenge? I mean we say you can't vote because you aren't a citizen of out country (ie, you're not from here) sounds to me like that is a clear case of descrimination based on country of origin, but even if it were challenged, it wouldn't ever be ruled unconstitutional because the privalege it provides is based on that chriteria.

ie. you can't vote without citizenship and being 18, you can't be 18 and a citizen and not be allowed to vote.

kinda like: you can't be get married without a consenting man/woman pair, and you can't be denied to be married if you are a consenting man/woman pair of age.

I earlier said I was tired of this issue, but I just have to thank you for saying what I've been trying to say all along.

Marriage is not an individual right, it's a specific type of contract available to a man and a woman who agree to enter into that contract. If marriage is a right under the constitution, then we should have a lot of single, 40-year-old losers going to the courts to demand that right be upheld, even though they can't find someone willing to marry them.

"It's my right to get married! Find me a wife!"

Before I get flamed, I'll reiterate: I see no problem with a civil union that's legally equivalent to marriage in the eyes of the government. Just don't try to re-define a term that's been around for centuries.

[troutman]

Marriage is not an individual right, it's a specific type of contract available to a man and a woman who agree to enter into that contract. If marriage is a right under the constitution, then we should have a lot of single, 40-year-old losers going to the courts to demand that right be upheld, even though they can't find someone willing to marry them.

Faulty logic. Does not compute. The 40-year-old-loser is different; he has no-one willing to enter into a marraige with him. Two gay people willing to enter into a marriage is totally different.

[peter12]

I saw that Dr. Dobson on TV, one of the vehemently anti gay rights people. He said that that the average gay person has 300-1000 affairs in their lives.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by peter12@Sep 16 2004, 04:33 PM
I saw that Dr. Dobson on TV, one of the vehemently anti gay rights people. He said that that the average gay person has 300-1000 affairs in their lives.

Good lord you have to be kidding me. Who the hell is "Dr. Dobson"?

[peter12]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 16 2004, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 16 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Sep 16 2004, 04:33 PM
I saw that Dr. Dobson on TV, one of the vehemently anti gay rights people. He said that that the average gay person has 300-1000 affairs in their lives.

Good lord you have to be kidding me. Who the hell is "Dr. Dobson"? [/b][/quote]
Focus on the Family and that deal. Religious right, struck me as quite the zealot.
Said that gay marriage would lead to men marrying donkeys, same old sh*t.

Traditional family would be in jeopardy, bad thing.

I agree with him that the tearing apart of the traditional family is bad, just that that happened about 2000 years ago.

[troutman]

Originally posted by peter12@Sep 16 2004, 10:33 PM
I saw that Dr. Dobson on TV, one of the vehemently anti gay rights people. He said that that the average gay person has 300-1000 affairs in their lives.

I really doubt that.

Only Wilt Chamberlain or Gene Simmons could say they had that many affairs.