NationStates Jolt Archive

Yay! The provincial government of Alberta is "grudgingly" permitting same-sex marriages. For those who don't know, this is a huge step forward for this conservative government.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1977605

CALGARY (CP) - The Alberta government has grudgingly decided to allow same-sex marriage but is adding new legislative protection for anyone who opposes it on moral or religious grounds.
"We will proceed to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, much to our chagrin, following proclamation of the federal Civil Marriage Act," Premier Ralph Klein said Tuesday. "We will develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious," Klein told a news conference after meeting with his cabinet.

The new provincial law will enshrine the freedom to express opposition to same-sex marriage, Klein said, so that no one will "be required to advocate, promote or teach about marriage in a way that conflicts with their beliefs."

In other words, Alberta will allow same-sex marriage but not force ministers or marriage commissioners to perform the ceremonies if they don't want to.

(more on link)

It was expected. They had no other choice, the bastards.

It was expected. They had no other choice, the bastards.
Technically, they did. They could probably have invoked the "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution indefinately.

Holy crap! W00T! Makes me want to run out and marry a gay woman! Oh wait...that would make me a polygamist...and then I'd prove Klein right in his dire predictions....

No seriously. Awesome. I'm glad we managed to not be total asses about something so....common sense!

I'm glad we managed to not be total asses about something so....common sense!
Me too. There may be hope, yet, for at least one of our conservative parties. ;)

I wish we had more of your conservatives in the US. Want to trade? We'll take just about anything in exchange for James Dobson, Pat Robertson and a moron to be named later.

...and a moron to be named later.
Wow. Future considerations. That's a mighty fine offer...

I wish we had more of your conservatives in the US. Want to trade? We'll take just about anything in exchange for James Dobson, Pat Robertson and a moron to be named later.
No...seriously....we shouldn't even be allowed to call our conservatives and American conservatives by the same name. We should have to specify, Canadian and American conservatives so we realise that our conservatives are actually your liberals, and our liberals are your commies:)

a moron to be named later.
I'd like to name him Charles. Or Stephen.

Anyway, yay for gay marriage and Alberta.

I'd like to name him Charles. Or Stephen.
Or Fluffy!

Wow. Looks like we don't even have to implement Operation: Make Everything Albertans Hold Dear Seem Really Gay.

Technically, they did. They could probably have invoked the "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution indefinately.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/070905pei.htm

Alberta has announced it is seeking a way to opt out of the law, but admits has been unable so far to find a loophole short of getting out of issuing civil marriage licenses to anyone. That would leave marriage up to churches.

I was under the impression that the "notwithstanding" clause allowed legislatures to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter, and not such a particular federal law. Hence why the government of Canada could have used it not to comply with the rulings of the courts and Supreme Court, but provincial legislatures cannot use it to evade the same-sex marriage law.

Alberta was the only province holding out, correct?

edit: Ah, my 14,000th post. I'll dedicate it to Fass, considering the topic of the thread.

As ever...

Wow. Future considerations. That's a mighty fine offer...
We're desperate to move them. We could be persuaded to throw in a couple of minor league morons to sweeten the pot. :D

We're desperate to move them. We could be persuaded to throw in a couple of minor league morons to sweeten the pot. :D

Word is our pot's already pretty sweet.

Looks like this map may need updating....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Gaymap.PNG

Wow. Looks like we don't even have to implement Operation: Make Everything Albertans Hold Dear Seem Really Gay.
Oh, I would definately go ahead with that anyway...it sounds like a lot of fun!

I was under the impression that the "notwithstanding" clause allowed legislatures to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter, and not such a particular federal law. Hence why the government of Canada could have used it not to comply with the rulings of the courts and Supreme Court, but provincial legislatures cannot use it to evade the same-sex marriage law.
I was just going by "word on the street," so no doubt you are correct (if you know anything about it, you know more than I).

EDIT: Darn. I should learn something about politics, someday. It might even help with my job.

Oh, I would definately go ahead with that anyway...it sounds like a lot of fun!

Well, I'm mainly in it for the planning, and not the execution. Tell me, how do you feel about wearing a cowboy outfit and makeup, with a feather boa?

I was just going by "word on the street," so no doubt you are correct (if you know anything about it, you know more than I).

Oh, I'm really not an expert in Canadian constitutional law - it's just what I've surmised from taking part of Canadian media. I'm not certain about being right at all in this matter, but it seems to have been strange of them to say that they can't find a way out of it if the "notwithstanding" clause were available.

Looks like this map may need updating....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Gaymap.PNG
I had no idea it was punishable by death in some places.

I had no idea it was punishable by death in some places.

Neither did I, but looking at the places where it is punishible by death, I'm hardly surprised.

Neither did I, but looking at the places where it is punishible by death, I'm hardly surprised.

You should have seen the map of the US a few years ago. The southern states were nice and pink. :rolleyes:

You should have seen the map of the US a few years ago. The southern states were nice and pink. :rolleyes:

Massachusetts is a nice dark green, you'll notice. That's because Massachusetts rules.

Here's one just of North America:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Samesex_Map_North_America.png

And of Europe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Samesex_Map_Europe.png
(way too big to display)

Massachusetts is a nice dark green, you'll notice. That's because Massachusetts rules.

Yes, it does. For how long is uncertain, though. I read something about a referendum on a constitutional change looming in 2006. Worrysome for old "Taxachusetts*."

*Simpsons reference.

Oh, I'm really not an expert in Canadian constitutional law - it's just what I've surmised from taking part of Canadian media. I'm not certain about being right at all in this matter, but it seems to have been strange of them to say that they can't find a way out of it if the "notwithstanding" clause were available.
You're bang on. It's within the Feds' jurisdiction to say what the definition of marriage is: basically who can get married. Hence it is a federal law that was passed on the matter.. though there are certain areas of marriage that the provinces do have jurisdiction over. It's a bit of a mess, but long story short the provinces can't do anything about the legal definition.

Looks like this map may need updating....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Gaymap.PNG

That truly is the gayest map I've ever seen.

That truly is the gayest map I've ever seen.

What's "gay" about it? Are there straight maps?

Yes, it does. For how long is uncertain, though. I read something about a referendum on a constitutional change looming in 2006. Worrysome for old "Taxachusetts*."

*Simpsons reference.

Yeah, that's our Governor, Mitt Romney, doing his best to impress out of state voters for his probable presidential run in 2008. He's done his very best to alienate voters in the state, though, to the point that I doubt he'll be re-elected in 2006.

edit: And after doing some research, it appears that the support in the House and Senate for the constitutional amendment is eroding to the point where the supporters are looking to pursue a ballot initiative for 2008. Because while the compromise amendment requires 101 votes in legislature, getting on the ballot only requires 51 votes in legislature.

edit the second: And it also appears that several of the more hardline conservative supporters are getting off of the amendment because it allows civil unions for homosexuals. So the amendment is losing support in legislature from both moderate and hardline conservatives. Even the co-author of the proposed amendment is reconsidering his position.

Also, there's no political pressure to enact some sort of legislature against gay marriage. The state no longer has to try and show a measure of solidarity for Senator Kerry, who was on record as against gay marriage. Without having to support him, a lot of the Democrats who voted for the amendment may reverse their decisions. And a pair of representatives who supported the amendment last time lost their seats, one going to a pro-gay marriage representative.

And public opinion is in support of gay marriages. The Globe ran a poll in March: 56% of the state approves of gay marriages, 37% disapproves, and 7% were unsure. That's up from 40% approval of gay marriages a year ago.

Wow, didn't mean for this to get so long. Just felt the need to explain things.