I don't believe the government should have their hands in the business of marriage anyway.
Sorry, but they do, as they do with pretty much all other contractual matters, and that's essentially what marriage is. As they are involved they should treat all parties equally, which means that rights that are granted federally need to be respected federally.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Part of me thinks society should go the other way. Get rid of civil unions completely. If people want to be in union with each other, straight or gay, they can do it without the bother of legalities.
I am totally ripping this off from a comedian I heard before and can't remember who it was, but if marriage didn't exist today, would you invent it?
I know people say it is needed in order to keep families together for the sake of children, but I am not totally convinced. It seems like at least half the people I know come from broken homes anyway (and a lot had to go through parents getting nasty divorces).
Marriage is an important legal relationship that affects the custody and care of children (of that marriage), the division of family property upon family breakdown or death, etc, etc. As a social and legal institution, it is thousands of years old and as fundamental to modern human society as the ideas of property or rights.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Part of me thinks society should go the other way. Get rid of civil unions completely. If people want to be in union with each other, straight or gay, they can do it without the bother of legalities.
I am totally ripping this off from a comedian I heard before and can't remember who it was, but if marriage didn't exist today, would you invent it?
I know people say it is needed in order to keep families together for the sake of children, but I am not totally convinced. It seems like at least half the people I know come from broken homes anyway (and a lot had to go through parents getting nasty divorces).
One thing that marriages do is define the economic terms for the death of one of the people and for separation. All marriage is is an contract which specifies survivor benefits and termination benefits. So marriage and common law status gives protection to both parties in terms of property, debt, pensions.
So some form of contract is required otherwise you will have a bigger mess in the event of divorces. And Nasty divorces still happen, they will be worse as there won't be a set of rules to disolve these partnerships. Without marriage people will still create families and these families will also disolve.
I could care less about the term marriage and the religious aspect of it. Both my wife and I would be fine with a civil union, or whatever. I say get religion out of marriage but keep govt (fed.) involved as there are legal, contractual etc implications.
__________________
Pass the bacon.
The Following User Says Thank You to DuffMan For This Useful Post:
While this is a huge victory and it's about time, it's going to further divide America for a while. Many of the southern states will not enact the state rights that would accompany or enhance the federal rights. In fact, there might just be push back that further alienates gay people in those regions,
Shoot, Mississippi just finally got anti-slavery reforms and other (racial) civil rights officially recognized in the constitution last year. One could argue that at this point in time it would be largely symbolic, but I would suggest that that view may be missing the point. It really goes to show where the dialogue (or lack thereof rather) is and where the values have left to go.
As far as gay rights go, unfortunately they will still have a tough uphill slog in many of these states. It may actually get to a point 25+ years down the road where the federal government has to step in with a revised bill of rights, or whatever may allow them to enforce the same sort of values in places like that.
Not exactly sure how that's done down there, as I know the states have much more individual power there than our provinces do here, but I got to imagine eventually some civil rights cases have to be enforced by the federal government.
There will be a lot of legal wrangling and governmental battles for a long time to come.
Marriage is an important legal relationship that affects the custody and care of children (of that marriage), the division of family property upon family breakdown or death, etc, etc. As a social and legal institution, it is thousands of years old and as fundamental to modern human society as the ideas of property or rights.
Not really true any more. At least in BC, common law spouses have been awarded equal legal footing with married spouses in family relations matters, estates matters, pensions, etc. I can't honestly think of any area where a married spouse gets preferential treatment any more
Not really true any more. At least in BC, common law spouses have been awarded equal legal footing with married spouses in family relations matters, estates matters, pensions, etc. I can't honestly think of any area where a married spouse gets preferential treatment any more
Too many people believe this and marry without considering the consequences. It is incorrect. Legally married spouses are entitled, upon divorce, to an equalization of net family property (i.e., all property [subject to a few exceptions of course] acquired by either spouse during the marriage is divided equally between them upon separation and divorce.) Unmarried persons, no matter how long they have cohabitated, are not. Obviously, this distinction can often result in a difference of outcome of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Too many people believe this and marry without considering the consequences. It is incorrect. Legally married spouses are entitled, upon divorce, to an equalization of net family property (i.e., all property [subject to a few exceptions of course] acquired by either spouse during the marriage is divided equally between them upon separation and divorce.) Unmarried persons, no matter how long they have cohabitated, are not. Obviously, this distinction can often result in a difference of outcome of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
I believe that has changed recently in BC. Now division of property on the breakup of a common law marriage is more or less identical to what happens in a divorce. I also wouldn't be surprised if other provinces follow suit with more and more people opting to live in common law relationships as opposed to getting married.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
....., it took the courts to recognize that the democratic process was running contrary to basic civil rights and had to make a tough decision to overrule the population.
.....
This is actually a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Regardless of the topic how is this type of thing in any way good?
__________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
I believe that has changed recently in BC. Now division of property on the breakup of a common law marriage is more or less identical to what happens in a divorce. I also wouldn't be surprised if other provinces follow suit with more and more people opting to live in common law relationships as opposed to getting married.
You're right (and I'm wrong.) It looks like BC recently amended its legislation. I was speaking from an Ontario perspective.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
So because they are making a call on a human rights issue, suddenly every check and balance is thrown out?
Watch out guys, gays can marry. Better stock up on AR15s and canned ham.
I don't know what you mean by ham and guns.
I would prefer people with power make decisions based on what the electorate want. This is a general statement, not related to this issue specifically.
I understand you are happy with this decision because you happen to agree with it, but if the government was Islamic would you want them to force you to grow a beard and put a burka on your wife?
I am just saying the principle isn't good, regardless of the issue at hand.
__________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
I don't know what you mean by ham and guns.
I would prefer people with power make decisions based on what the electorate want. This is a general statement, not related to this issue specifically.
I understand you are happy with this decision because you happen to agree with it, but if the government was Islamic would you want them to force you to grow a beard and put a burka on your wife?
I am just saying the principle isn't good, regardless of the issue at hand.
If you don't want to follow the laws of the highest judicial body, why bother having a judicial arm to the government?
Overriding massive stupidity and non-progress should be job #1 for any government.
The Court is not the government. I don't agree that what the court did was at all overruling the democratic process, but if someone sees it that way I can understand why they'd take issue with it.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
If you don't want to follow the laws of the highest judicial body, why bother having a judicial arm to the government?
I don't know if you are switching your arguement around but thing you said was:
" it took the courts to recognize that the democratic process was running contrary to basic civil rights and had to make a tough decision to overrule the population"
which means the courts can do what they want if they feel the people are wrong. I disagree with that.
__________________
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
