NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/05/same-sex_marriage_041105.html
In case our friends to the South aren't keeping count (or in case Canadians aren't either), this makes 6 Provinces and 1 Territory where the courts have found that the definition of Marriage as exclusively heterosexual is unconstitutional (There are 10 Provinces and 3 Territories.). What an interesting week: 11 states decide to ban gay marriages on Tuesday, and by Friday, the majority of Canada has legalized them. So, if we keep on moving like this (Canada left, and the United States to the right) are we going to split apart?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/05/same-sex_marriage_041105.html
In case our friends to the South aren't keeping count (or in case Canadians aren't either), this makes 6 Provinces and 1 Territory where the courts have found that the definition of Marriage as exclusively heterosexual is unconstitutional (There are 10 Provinces and 3 Territories.). What an interesting week: 11 states decide to ban gay marriages on Tuesday, and by Friday, the majority of Canada has legalized them. So, if we keep on moving like this (Canada left, and the United States to the right) are we going to split apart?

Of course not. THis only muddies issues. For instance, if more and more countries marry gay couples, the United States, sooner or later, is going to have to decide whether those marriages will be recognized in the United States. Even more interesting, if some U.S. States start marrying gay couples, other states are going to have to make that call too.

Fun times are ahead. :D

Though it may seem like the US has pulled to the right recently, I still believe the general trend of history is to the left. It's like the stock market, ups and downs, but overall, moving up.

20-30 years from now we'll look back and wonder what the big fuss was about.

Whoo!

I've always liked Canada.

Whoo!

I've always liked Canada.
This is my fear: Americans coming up to get married, get cheap drugs, flus shots, and, if Bush has his way, abortions. Now, it makes no difference to me what they do down South, but come on, guys... it's getting crowded. Well, okay.. Canada is not by any means crowded but... you know what I mean. US policy leading to demands on Canadian systems. Lovely.

Gay marriage rights are inevitable. Anyone who was against them is just going to look like a douche bag in hindsite.

yay for saskachewan!


eventually, the only province or territory where this isn't legal will be alberta.

This is my fear: Americans coming up to get married, get cheap drugs, flus shots, and, if Bush has his way, abortions. Now, it makes no difference to me what they do down South, but come on, guys... it's getting crowded. Well, okay.. Canada is not by any means crowded but... you know what I mean. US policy leading to demands on Canadian systems. Lovely.

if americans come here to get married, it won't matter. the u.s. doesn't recognize same sex unions.

there was a gay couple who got married shortly after ontario who went to the states after and they filled in a family form to cross the border and the border guards wouldnt' accept it. they were told to fill out two individual forms, they refused and they turned around and went home.

Oh noes! The world is turning PINK! Run! Hide your children! Protect them from the evil GAY SPACE LASERS brainwashing our youth into despicable faggotry! We must defend our way of life from the homos! We must maintain our right to break the noses of turd-burglars! We must fight for our freedom to trailer-haul the poofs! Goddamn bent fairy marriages, next thing people will be marrying their own children! We must stop the queers before it's too late! We must unite against the sodomites! We must defend our sensibilities against the arse-bandits! We must destroy any chance of these pansies to have their "equality" before it tears down the sanctity of marriage, which as we all know is the sole property of the Christian religion! We must continue to deny these nancy boys and dykes any kind of legal recognition, for this would destroy us all, as surely as the LORD destroyed those evil men of Sodom! Say NO to the batty boys! Say NO to the chocolate starfish invaders! Say NO to the daggers, fruits, lemons, moffies, nellies, queens, rug munchers, sissies, trannies, peter puffers, lesbos and all those other DEVIANT types. THEY WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL!

Uhm.

My apologies, I seem to have suffered a temporary brain seizure.

Uhm.

My apologies, I seem to have suffered a temporary brain seizure.
Perhaps it's for the best. :)

Of course not. THis only muddies issues. For instance, if more and more countries marry gay couples, the United States, sooner or later, is going to have to decide whether those marriages will be recognized in the United States. Even more interesting, if some U.S. States start marrying gay couples, other states are going to have to make that call too.

Fun times are ahead. :D

That is how I think it will go to. The US is usually behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to civil rights. Land of the free my ass!!!

That is how I think it will go to. The US is usually behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to civil rights. Land of the free my ass!!!Depends on how you use the phrase "civilized world", I'd rather be in the US as bitter as I'm feeling about it now than Sudan.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/05/same-sex_marriage_041105.html
In case our friends to the South aren't keeping count (or in case Canadians aren't either), this makes 6 Provinces and 1 Territory where the courts have found that the definition of Marriage as exclusively heterosexual is unconstitutional (There are 10 Provinces and 3 Territories.). What an interesting week: 11 states decide to ban gay marriages on Tuesday, and by Friday, the majority of Canada has legalized them. So, if we keep on moving like this (Canada left, and the United States to the right) are we going to split apart?
YEAH! WOOHOO!!

Yay for progress! Though I doubt it'll fly in Alberta - redneck country.

But, if it flies in almost every province then it'll have to fly across Canada.

YEAH! WOOHOO!!

Yay for progress! Though I doubt it'll fly in Alberta - redneck country.

But, if it flies in almost every province then it'll have to fly across Canada.
Came up before the Supreme Court of Canada.. decision pending in maybe a year or two.

Man, you can always rely on canada to remain so wonderfully liberal a country!

Good stuff, now if only Herr Howard would see the logic in this, set aside his christofastic tendencies and act liberal. You know, as his actual party is called. (Aussie politics is in a bad way atm, so pardon my rambling).

Slightly off topic but related, did I seriously hear that some recently elected Senator from Oklahoma actually said he was determined to crack down on "rampant lesbianism in schools"??

Saskatchewan to allow same-sex marriages


By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

In depth
Gay marriage
Canada's top court hears Ottawa reference on same-sex marriages

Saskatchewan has become the seventh Canadian jurisdiction to allow same-sex marriages.

Madam Justice Donna Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled Friday that the traditional definition of marriage, as it currently exists, discriminates against gay and lesbian couples.

Five couples who were denied marriage licences because they were not of the opposite sex filed a statement of claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the common-law definition of marriage be changed.

The group wanted the definition changed to read "two people to the exclusion of others," rather than "two people of the opposite sex."

"The judge found that it is unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage and changed the law to include them," said Greg Walen of Saskatoon law firm Scharfstein Gibbings Walen & Fisher, who represents the couples. "The judge agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that 'the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.'"

Justice Minister Frank Quennell has said the provincial government will not contest the challenge.

Justice Wilson ordered that a total of $10,000 in legal costs be paid to the five couples making the application. The tab was split evenly between the two levels of government.

"Marriage signifies societal recognition and affirmation of a relationship between two people who love each other and are committed to each other," said Lenore Swystun, who was part of the court challenge with her partner, Kelley Moore.

"Kelley and I had a commitment ceremony Jan. 25, 2002, but, for us, equal marriage is simply about acknowledging our basic human rights."

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in every province or territory where the constitutionality of banning it has been challenged in the courts. Gay and lesbian couples may also marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Yukon and Nova Scotia.

Came up before the Supreme Court of Canada.. decision pending in maybe a year or two.

i thought that it was being deceided sooner than that... but then the conservatives were trying to draw it out some more.

it's kinda funny how everyone in the other parties will vote for gay marriage though. (well, i think a couple liberals won't... but ndp have to and the bloc are cool like that)

My apologies, I seem to have suffered a temporary brain seizure.
*patpats Moonshine* Here, have another chocolate.

Good stuff, now if only Herr Howard would see the logic in this, set aside his christofastic tendencies and act liberal. You know, as his actual party is called. (Aussie politics is in a bad way atm, so pardon my rambling).

An Australian: how nice. I've always wondered what your healthcare was like, and you've got compulsory voting?
Anyway, the PM is spineless about this issue in Canada too. The appointed judges had to make the decision, because politicians won't touch it.
...Wait, that's not really true. The NDP is openly in favour, and Conservative leader Stephen Harper seems to be against it. Try to get Prime Minister Paul Martin to give a straight answer though?.... I miss Chretien. HE was going to put a bill before the house of commons.... good old droopy. :(

Of course not. THis only muddies issues. For instance, if more and more countries marry gay couples, the United States, sooner or later, is going to have to decide whether those marriages will be recognized in the United States. Even more interesting, if some U.S. States start marrying gay couples, other states are going to have to make that call too.

Fun times are ahead. :D
In Oklahoma the way the Constitutional Amendment was written, Oklahoma will not and cannot recognize any marriage other than between a man and a woman. The federal government has no power to make a state recognize a marriage in another state. Remember, we do have some states rights in the US.
I have no doubt these laws will be contested in court, and people have the right to do that. However, these laws were passed by a majority of the people in each of the states. In a democracy or a republic shouldn't the majority rule?
OK! "But I have rights to..." Yes, but nowhere in the Constitution do I see. "The right to marry." In fact, in some states, it is still illegal to marry your first cousin or your brother or sister. I know the lawyers are going to have a field day with this. It is unfortunate, because they will be the only ones that will win. They will win $$$.
Why don't we do this the easy way? Keep our sexual preferences in the bedroom. Don't go around hollering that you are XXXsexual. Your sexual preferences are none of my business and my sexuality is none of your business. We are all as citizens of this country protected equally under the law. We do not need additional laws to protect us because of our sexual preferences.
Now I'll get off my soapbox and have another glass of wine.
The Ard Re of Celtlund
Sean

i thought that it was being deceided sooner than that... but then the conservatives were trying to draw it out some more.

it's kinda funny how everyone in the other parties will vote for gay marriage though. (well, i think a couple liberals won't... but ndp have to and the bloc are cool like that)
Oh, no. The conservatives aren't involved. I'm talking about the Court's decision. The case just came before them a little while ago, and courts take super-long. (Technical legal term, of course.) A bill could easily be passed in a much shorter period, but I'm doubtful about Martin's intestinal fortitude with a Minority government, even if most are in favour.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper seems to be against it.
seems to be against it?

he was writing letters to priests and shit everywhere before the last election encouraging them to do all they could to stop gay marriage from happening.

i think that's more than a "seems to be against it"

and yeah, i liked cretien better than martin. you've got to love how you could hardly understand the guy half the time. what with the paralyzed face and english not being his first language...

Oh, no. The conservatives aren't involved. I'm talking about the Court's decision. The case just came before them a little while ago, and courts take super-long. (Technical legal term, of course.) A bill could easily be passed in a much shorter period, but I'm doubtful about Martin's intestinal fortitude with a Minority government, even if most are in favour.

no, the conservatives were trying to get it out of the courts and force a vote. or something...

i dunno, i don't get the paper anymore...

In Oklahoma the way the Constitutional Amendment was written, Oklahoma will not and cannot recognize any marriage other than between a man and a woman. The federal government has no power to make a state recognize a marriage in another state. Remember, we do have some states rights in the US.
I have no doubt these laws will be contested in court, and people have the right to do that. However, these laws were passed by a majority of the people in each of the states. In a democracy or a republic shouldn't the majority rule?
OK! "But I have rights to..." Yes, but nowhere in the Constitution do I see. "The right to marry." In fact, in some states, it is still illegal to marry your first cousin or your brother or sister. I know the lawyers are going to have a field day with this. It is unfortunate, because they will be the only ones that will win. They will win $$$.
Why don't we do this the easy way? Keep our sexual preferences in the bedroom. Don't go around hollering that you are XXXsexual. Your sexual preferences are none of my business and my sexuality is none of your business. We are all as citizens of this country protected equally under the law. We do not need additional laws to protect us because of our sexual preferences.
Now I'll get off my soapbox and have another glass of wine.
The Ard Re of Celtlund
Sean
nitpick: it's not a prefrence. it's a sexual orientation. you can't just wake up one day and say "you know, i want to date women" the only instance for which it woudl be a prefrence would be if you have someone who is strictly bisexual... who is equally attracted to both genders. they can prefer one gender to the other... then it is prefrence... their sexual orientation is bisexual though. however, a person who is only attracted to members of the same sex does not prefer to choose members of the same sex, they are only attracted to members of the same sex.

Show them Americans how to do it right. Go Canada! Woohoooo *applauds*

no, the conservatives were trying to get it out of the courts and force a vote. or something...

i dunno, i don't get the paper anymore...
That is the Conservatives' position, sure. Always has been: Appointed judges shouldn't make decisions instead of elected representatives. Is this recent? I'll look into it.

The Conservatives don't seem to get that you don't have a free vote on a charter issue (aside from amendments to the charter). It's not like we can just vote to make same-sex marriage illegal, and then have it in direct contravention of the courts and the charter. Besides that, the courts could strike the law down even if a vote in the commons banned same-sex marriage.

The conservatives seem to want to revise our judicial system in a way that will result in a complete glut of power in the commons, without any real type of oversight. Sad.

Slightly off topic but related, did I seriously hear that some recently elected Senator from Oklahoma actually said he was determined to crack down on "rampant lesbianism in schools"??
Yeah, Coburn said it was such a problem they only let one girl in the bathroom at a time. All I can say is, thank god Alan Keyes lost (he went after Mary Cheney much more than Kerry or Edwards could ever be accused of).

if americans come here to get married, it won't matter. the u.s. doesn't recognize same sex unions.

there was a gay couple who got married shortly after ontario who went to the states after and they filled in a family form to cross the border and the border guards wouldnt' accept it. they were told to fill out two individual forms, they refused and they turned around and went home.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I might be) but doesn't the USA have a marriage treaty with Canada? Can't US citizens be married there? So if a US gay couple were married and came back, they would have legal grounds to challenge DOMA and force the issue?

I coudl be wrong about the marriage treaty though.

Yeah, Coburn said it was such a problem they only let one girl in the bathroom at a time. All I can say is, thank god Alan Keyes lost (he went after Mary Cheney much more than Kerry or Edwards could ever be accused of).
Could someone please give me a reference to the "Coburn said"? I'd like to check out the source. Thank you.

In Oklahoma the way the Constitutional Amendment was written, Oklahoma will not and cannot recognize any marriage other than between a man and a woman. The federal government has no power to make a state recognize a marriage in another state. Remember, we do have some states rights in the US.


However the Oklahoma State Constitutional Amendment violates the Federal Constitution (the highest law in the land). The "Full faith and credit" rule of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV Section 1 and backed up in Section 2) compels the recognition of a marriage made valid under the laws of a sister state. In short, Oklahoma does not have to perform gay marriages. But it has to accept them from other states.


I have no doubt these laws will be contested in court, and people have the right to do that. However, these laws were passed by a majority of the people in each of the states. In a democracy or a republic shouldn't the majority rule?


The majority should rule in issues that don't deprive the minority of their equal and fair rights. IE a majority of men should not be able to force women to not vote or to stay at home or not speak in public.


Why don't we do this the easy way? Keep our sexual preferences in the bedroom. Don't go around hollering that you are XXXsexual. Your sexual preferences are none of my business and my sexuality is none of your business. We are all as citizens of this country protected equally under the law. We do not need additional laws to protect us because of our sexual preferences.


Actually, we do need laws to protect our sexual orientation. (on a side note, sexual preference is no longer used because that implies choice, which is it not). Why you might ask? Well, because bigotted people out there seek to deprive us of equal rights as humans. And why should homosexuals have to keep it private? Straight people don't. You have public weddings. You hold hands in public. You date. Why shouldn't we? And right now, all citizens are not protected equally. Under the law, gay people cannot get married. Straight people can. There are over 800 rights given to married people. That's not equal protection.

The Conservatives don't seem to get that you don't have a free vote on a charter issue (aside from amendments to the charter). It's not like we can just vote to make same-sex marriage illegal, and then have it in direct contravention of the courts and the charter.
*Cough*Notwithstanding Clause*Cough*!

However the Oklahoma State Constitutional Amendment violates the Federal Constitution (the highest law in the land). The "Full faith and credit" rule of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV Section 1 and backed up in Section 2) compels the recognition of a marriage made valid under the laws of a sister state. In short, Oklahoma does not have to perform gay marriages. But it has to accept them from other states.Yes it does. It also violates the 1st and 14th amendments. Unfortunately, neither the Oklahoma Court nor the national Supreme Court are going to interpret it this way. A disgusting situation for constitutional rights.


Oh, and the majority card was used to keep blacks in slavery, then to deny them votes, then to deny them decent housing and education, and so on and so on. It was used to deny women the right to own property, have marriage rights, vote, and so on. Minority rights are essential, and it's the judicial branch's job to protect them. The legislative and executive can worry about the majority...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/05/same-sex_marriage_041105.html
In case our friends to the South aren't keeping count (or in case Canadians aren't either), this makes 6 Provinces and 1 Territory where the courts have found that the definition of Marriage as exclusively heterosexual is unconstitutional (There are 10 Provinces and 3 Territories.). What an interesting week: 11 states decide to ban gay marriages on Tuesday, and by Friday, the majority of Canada has legalized them. So, if we keep on moving like this (Canada left, and the United States to the right) are we going to split apart?



Wow, Sask finally made the news for something other than Saskatoon police officers dumping an aboriginal off in the praries in the middle of winter.