NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I received an e-mail the other day. You can read an article that says basically the same thing as the e-mail here:

http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/

Rather than sign the petition, I wrote the following e-mail to my Member of Parliament:

Dear MP:
I recently received an e-mail from a group callled Restore Marriage Canada. I have copied a portion of the text below so that you may know the tone and the intent of the message (bolding is theirs).
"It is essential to understand first of all that there is nothing more important than restoring traditional marriage in determining what kind of nation and society we will pass on to future generations of Canadians. Radically redefining marriage to include same-sex individuals undermines this vital institution. Throughout history, marriage between a man and a woman has been essential to forming strong families. Strong families, in turn, have always been the foundation of all successful societies. We ignore these lessons of history at our peril.
With the recent election of a Conservative Government, we have a chance—probably our last chance--to revisit the legalization of same-sex “marriage” that the Liberal Government rammed through Parliament last year without holding fair, balanced, honest and adequate hearings to consider all of the consequences of this radical redefinition of this fundamental institution.
As you will recall, Prime Minister Harper made revisiting the issue of legalization of same-sex “marriage” a key election issue and he has committed to at least bring the issue before Parliament for a free vote. It will not be easy for the government to win this vote, even though opinion polls consistently show that a solid majority of Canadians oppose legal same-sex “marriage.” "
Obviously, they are organising an online campaign to legally define marriage so as to exclude same sex marriage. They would like me to show my support for their campaign by signing an online petition.
Rather than doing so, I thought I would express my support for same sex marriage and urge you, my Member of Parliament, to vote to support same sex marriage as well, should Mr.Harper revisit the debate in the House of Commons. According to the information I was able to access, you have consistently supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry since Mr. Harper proposed his amendment to Bill C-38 on April 12, 2005. I now urge you to continue your support.
Thank you,

Me.

So, if you're Canadian and believe that marriage is a right that should be extended to same-sex couples, please send a letter or e-mail to your MP.

The contact information can be found by finding your MP here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp?Language=E&param=c
and clicking on his or her name.

If you wish to sign Restore Marriage Canada's online petition, you can do so here:
http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/aboutthepetition.cfm

This is a democracy, folks. Let's do it.

Personally, I don't agree with it, but I say allow it under a different name.

My MP won't give a shit, he's against gay marriage.

Stupid people in Flamborough all voted conservative, we're the only part of Hamilton that doesn't have a member of the NDP representing them.

Personally, I don't agree with it, but I say allow it under a different name.
Why a different name? Marriage existed before organized religion did.

Hey, I voted Conservative. I live somewhere else though.

Why a different name? Marriage existed before organized religion did.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.

Hey, I voted Conservative. I live somewhere else though.
Well, I think the bigger problem was that many of my fellow students didn't vote. My school has roughly the population of Flamborough, if 1000 more people had voted liberal (which would be likely if everyone in my school had voted) then we wouldn't be represented by a misogynistic douchebag right now.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.
Marriage isn't always a religious ceremony. When I get married, it won't be a religious ceremony, but I'm still getting married.

Hell, again, marriage started off before religions did, and they often extended to same sex couples before organized religions got involved in it.

Hell, the church wasn't even marrying people until the 16th century in Europe... and then it was only because it became fashionable. Marriage is a civil ceremony first and then some people like to add religious implications to it. That's all.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.
Bull. That's continuing the tired ass "separate but equal" argument. Instead of that, remove civil recognition of religious marriage and require all couples to get civil marriages.

I hope, if in no other case, Canada has legal provisions enshrined againt Ex Post Facto, and thus provide protection against those who are already married under the present system.

I hope, if in no other case, Canada has legal provisions enshrined againt Ex Post Facto, and thus provide protection against those who are already married under the present system.

Yes, people married in Canada now, while it is legal, would have their marriages recognised by the government as legal and binding even if the law is changed in the future.

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.

Though our neighbor to the north is, in it's self-explanitory name, "Canada", they still have their heads on their shoulders, and when you get right down to it, are really great people.

I admire Canada. Not all the time, but overall, they're pretty good.

GO CANADA! :D

My MP won't give a shit, he's against gay marriage.

Stupid people in Flamborough all voted conservative, we're the only part of Hamilton that doesn't have a member of the NDP representing them.

Do it anyway! If your MP's position is that precarious, a small avalanche of letters may cause him to think that he better throw a bone or two to that portion of his constituency. It can't hurt.

Bull. That's continuing the tired ass "separate but equal" argument. Instead of that, remove civil recognition of religious marriage and require all couples to get civil marriages.
what is the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage?




I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry, in fact it kinda makes me sick that they aren't allowed now (in America anyway) and I don't see why they wouldn't just call it marriage. I am kinda obtuse on the subject though, my conservative Christian friends have tried to explain to me why I am wrong but I just don't understand.

Oh, I do know one thing they are afraid of is that the church will be forced to perform the gay marriages, but I doubt it, since they aren't forced to perform marriages now if they don't want to, and also I don't see the government getting very far in trying to make a law like that, since it would violate the seperation of church and state.

The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals marrying is that one has either two dicks or two pussies involved and the latter has a dick and a penis. It means nothing and there is no way the Bible argument could hold any water due to the extreme diversity of the Canadian population, especially since the Bible is only observed by a fraction of the overall public.

Plus, once we get a right, you really can't take it away because it's a nasty political gamble and people will make the government in power pay for it dearly.

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.
Add me to the list of people who support me, me and the majority of my friends.

The only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals marrying is that one has either two dicks or two pussies involved and the latter has a dick and a penis. It means nothing and there is no way the Bible argument could hold any water due to the extreme diversity of the Canadian population, especially since the Bible is only observed by a fraction of the overall public.

Plus, once we get a right, you really can't take it away because it's a nasty political gamble and people will make the government in power pay for it dearly.

Religious people aren't the only ones who oppose gay marriage.

In fact, surveys have shown most gays and lesbians (in the US) are, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.

It's only a very small radical faction of extreme leftists and gay "rights" activists who want gay marriage.

I was poking around the United Families International (the folks running this campaign) web site and they claim they are not linked to any religious groups.

One look at the topics of the UFI news - suicide/euthanasia, gays, abortion, prostitition and pornography. Now, doesn't that sound like the Christian right?

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.

Though our neighbor to the north is, in it's self-explanitory name, "Canada", they still have their heads on their shoulders, and when you get right down to it, are really great people.

I admire Canada. Not all the time, but overall, they're pretty good.

GO CANADA! :D

Well, you have met me, sort of. And Dakini appears to support it. I bet my last cookie that Sinuhue also supports it. And since it has been debated in the House of Commons since 2000, I am hesitant to say that it was rushed or crammed through.

About 66% of Canadians do not want to revisit the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
In November 2005, a poll taken by Environics Research said 66% of Canadians considered the issue of same-sex marriage "settled and it's time to move on."[18] Another Environics poll taken January 2006 said 66% of Canadians were against bringing the issue of same-sex marriage back to Parliament.[19]

I was poking around the United Families International (the folks running this campaign) web site and they claim they are not linked to any religious groups.

One look at the topics of the UFI news - suicide/euthanasia, gays, abortion, prostitition and pornography. Now, doesn't that sound like the Christian right?

Yes it does.

Religious people aren't the only ones who oppose gay marriage.

In fact, surveys have shown most gays and lesbians (in the US) are, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.

It's only a very small radical faction of extreme leftists and gay "rights" activists who want gay marriage.

Odd. Do you mind posting a cite? I don't want to sound like I'm accusing you of lying or anything, but I find this hard to believe.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.

If a couple gets married by a judge in a civil ceremony is it any less a marriage? No. Religion doesn't have to support gay marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution! What does it take to convince you religious conservatives that gay marriage will not kill you or your church? It doesn't cost a thing to you (not one red cent) and it could make a lot of people happy. A few Christian churches don't approve of alcohol yet none of them are trying to completely ban it for the rest of tht population because they don't believe in it.

I'm not even going to get into why it shouldn't be called something different. I'll save that for another day.

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.
Hello, my name is East Canuck.
My real name is Phil.
Nice to meet you. How are you doing? Good... good.

Now you can no longer say the above statement as I like the legalization of Gay marriage and I do not want to reverse it.

Also, I can tell you with all the confidence in the world that the majority (around 67%) of the province of Quebec feel like me.

Though our neighbor to the north is, in it's self-explanitory name, "Canada", they still have their heads on their shoulders, and when you get right down to it, are really great people.

I admire Canada. Not all the time, but overall, they're pretty good.

GO CANADA! :D
Well, thank you. Go you too!

Also, I can tell you with all the confidence in the world that the majority (around 67%) of the province of Quebec feel like me.

Here in Montreal the local businesses are practically drooling over the idea of hundreds of USian couples coming up to get married and have a honeymoon, and spend lots of tourist dollars celebrating, of course!

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.
Then why the hell do you want your GOVERNMENT fucking with the RELIGOUS Ceremony

And which religion gets to determine what "Marrage" is? some religions feel it is between one man and multipul women

Looks like Canada's going red state on us.

Then why the hell do you want your GOVERNMENT fucking with the RELIGOUS Ceremony

And which religion gets to determine what "Marrage" is? some religions feel it is between one man and multipul women

UpwardThrust, I asked a question in post 14, but nobody answered it, can you answer it for me? I really do what to know.

What is the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage?

UpwardThrust, I asked a question in post 14, but nobody answered it, can you answer it for me? I really do what to know.

What is the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage?
Well a civil marriage is legally binding and a religious marriage doesn't mean shit to anyone other than the people involved.

UpwardThrust, I asked a question in post 14, but nobody answered it, can you answer it for me? I really do what to know.

What is the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage?
None theoredicaly They should prevey the same rights.

A religious is just the civil + a ceramony by specified religion ceramony

Well a civil marriage is legally binding and a religious marriage doesn't mean shit to anyone other than the people involved.
Well to be fair 99 percent of the time a "religious" marrage also is a civil one

what is the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage?

A religious marriage is performed by representatives of a deity following some sort of religious ceremony. It in principle has no legal standing; it is "a promise before God". Nothing more, but certainly also nothing less.

A civil marriage is a contract between people which is recognised by the government, giving the partners certain rights and legal benefits. Like being able to make decicions on behalf of your partner if he/she would be incapacitated, having to only fill in 1 taxform etc. God is not mentioned nor needed here.

A religious marriage is performed by representatives of a deity following some sort of religious ceremony. It in principle has no legal standing; it is "a promise before God". Nothing more, but certainly also nothing less.

A civil marriage is a contract between people which is recognised by the government, giving the partners certain rights and legal benefits. Like being able to make decicions on behalf of your partner if he/she would be incapacitated, having to only fill in 1 taxform etc. God is not mentioned nor needed here.
But again at least here the two are usualy mushed into one unless you have a purly civil one

UpwardThrust, I asked a question in post 14, but nobody answered it, can you answer it for me? I really do what to know.

What is the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage?
In a western civilization where we strive for separation of church and state, there are the following differences:

- A religion has no obligation to marry two people if their tenets do not allow it while the state has to find a valid reason to refuse that is not discrimination. (For example, you can have a Jewish temple refusing to marry two poeple because they are not jewish while the state cannot refuse to marry two people because they are not jewish.)

- A state does not have to recognize a religious marriage as valid if it does not represent the legal definition of marriage (say a pagan group let people marry their pet or a religon allows for polygamy while the state deem it illegal).

- A state marriage have legal benefits like tax breaks, power of attorney, etc. ; Unless the state recognize the religious marriage as valid, the religious marriage does not confer these benefits automatically (this is why, in Canada, when you marry in a church, you sign also the civil papers to be recognized by the state too.)

I'm sure there are others, but these are the big ones.

Religious people aren't the only ones who oppose gay marriage.

In fact, surveys have shown most gays and lesbians (in the US) are, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.

It's only a very small radical faction of extreme leftists and gay "rights" activists who want gay marriage.

I am amazed at the flexibility of your sphincter for allowing you to pull so much out of your ass as you go along.

I am amazed at the flexibility of your sphincter for allowing you to pull so much out of your ass as you go along.


Ahh there is my dossage of the Fassinator, always dominating his opponents..


But I must say, I would assume any Right wing Christian group would seek to criminalise gay marriage, probably even gay sex as well. So really, does this come off as a suprise to anyone?

what is the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage?




I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed to marry, in fact it kinda makes me sick that they aren't allowed now (in America anyway) and I don't see why they wouldn't just call it marriage. I am kinda obtuse on the subject though, my conservative Christian friends have tried to explain to me why I am wrong but I just don't understand.

Oh, I do know one thing they are afraid of is that the church will be forced to perform the gay marriages, but I doubt it, since they aren't forced to perform marriages now if they don't want to, and also I don't see the government getting very far in trying to make a law like that, since it would violate the seperation of church and state.

I most certainly concur with you. As a Christian myself, I don't see anything wrong with gay marraige. And as you said, its not like any one can be forced to marry them in a Church, so no worries right?


**Edit** ZOMG I just hit 1000...wootness! I would like to thank my God, my mom, and nationstates for this oppurtunity..hehe

No Canada! Stay sane! Don't listen to them!

Democracy. Doesnt. Work. Stupid canadians. I still love them though, they have adorable accents. But its aboot time they started being more tolerant.

Democracy. Doesnt. Work. Stupid canadians. I still love them though, they have adorable accents. But its aboot time they started being more tolerant.
explain then why gay marriage is legal in Canada, then.

OK, here is my take on it. How is gay marrage hurting these people? Does it effect them? No. Does it hurt them? No. How aboutand taking care of ourselves rather than being concerned of what everyone elce is doing when it is none of anyone elce's business. If you want to help marrage, how about trying to reduce divorce rates or, why not go after the celebs in Hollywood who make a complete mockery of it?

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.

Though our neighbor to the north is, in it's self-explanitory name, "Canada", they still have their heads on their shoulders, and when you get right down to it, are really great people.

I admire Canada. Not all the time, but overall, they're pretty good.

GO CANADA! :D


Well you are about to meet one. I'm Canadian and I love the fact that gay marriage is legal!

OK, here is my take on it. How is gay marrage hurting these people? Does it effect them? No. Does it hurt them? No. How aboutand taking care of ourselves rather than being concerned of what everyone elce is doing when it is none of anyone elce's business. If you want to help marrage, how about trying to reduce divorce rates or, why not go after the celebs in Hollywood who make a complete mockery of it?

Apparently gay marriage will magically make families stop working. :rolleyes:

Y'know, even despite the fact that it hasn't.

explain then why gay marriage is legal in Canada, then.
Because it was passed by a majority in parliament representing the Canadian public.

The only reason it's being brought up is because of Harper and his neo-con agenda.

Most Canadians don't care any more. We don't see the point in debating it so, that's why there isn't a big push any more. The right has been granted so we don't want it clogging up the HC when there are more pressing matters, such as, when are our troops going to get their Timbits?!

Because it was passed by a majority in parliament representing the Canadian public.

The only reason it's being brought up is because of Harper and his neo-con agenda.

Most Canadians don't care any more. We don't see the point in debating it so, that's why there isn't a big push any more. The right has been granted so we don't want it clogging up the HC when there are more pressing matters, such as, when are our troops going to get their Timbits?!
I'm with you Kryozerkia. It's just that I was responding to someone saying:
Democracy. Doesnt. Work. Stupid canadians. I still love them though, they have adorable accents. But its aboot time they started being more tolerant.
And I fail to see how he/she/it could come to this conclusion with Gay marriage being accepted right now by the majority of Canadians.

Most Canadians don't care any more. We don't see the point in debating it so, that's why there isn't a big push any more. The right has been granted so we don't want it clogging up the HC when there are more pressing matters, such as, when are our troops going to get their Timbits?!

Great. Now I'm jonesing for Timbits. Thanks, Kryozerkia.

Just proof that we have many of the same problems in Canada that they are contending with in the US. The Gay Marriage issue is one of the factors that ensure that the Conservative party does well in rural areas but poorly in large urban areas outside of Alberta.

As a Minority Government, the Conservatives are treading on thin ice over this and other issues. If they push too many free votes to dilute civil rights they’ll be clubbed with a vote of no confidence and we’ll be back to the polls.

I don’t really have a problem with Gay Marriage. I’m not Gay or Married, but I don’t really think that it’s government’s business to legislate relationships, unless livestock or children are being involved in very disturbing practices.

I would also like to point something out about why I received this e-mail:

Years ago, this same group was conducting an online poll. They hoped that it could be used as a tool to show the House that Canadians did not support same sex marriage. Fortunately, some intelligent person somewhere started forwarding it to every homosexual and gay-friendly person they knew, so that by the time I received it, the poll showed that approximately 3 out of 4 Canadians wanted same sex marriage to be legalised.

Needless to say, they are trying for a petition now (Stockwell, I mean Doris, Day would be so proud!) so the only way we get our voice heard is by contacting the House ourselves and speaking out.

Please, if you are Canadian, send an e-mail at least.

Thanks. Someday a homosexual person may buy you some Tim Horton's coffee in gratitude.;)

bump

For once I respect Canada!

Fag marriage FTL!

For once I respect Canada!

Fag marriage FTL!

Faster Than Light?

Fruit of The Loom?

For The Ladies?

Free To Love.

Faster Than Light?

Fruit of The Loom?

For The Ladies?

Free To Love.

FTL = For The Lose( like saying it's Bad) ( it's used alot on other forums, I guess not here?)

FTL = For The Lose( like sayin it's Bad) ( it's used alot on other forums, I guess not here?)

I don't know how frequently it's used on these forums. You might want to ask someone with a higher post count.

I still prefer Free To Love. It makes more sense, and doesn't leave me feeling jaded and bitter.:)

Apparently gay marriage will magically make families stop working. :rolleyes:

Y'know, even despite the fact that it hasn't.

Yup, and according to the site linked in the OP, apparently people can't be monogamous in a gay marriage either. :rolleyes:

In fact, surveys have shown most gays and lesbians (in the US) are, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.
Which ones? Show your sources and don't feed me a bunch of generalisations. And I hope those sources are objective and not the work of some right wing wacko breeding ground like Focus on the Family.

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

I'm Canadian, I support it whole-heartedly.

To use the not-withstanding clause to of prevented it would of been heinous.

I'm Canadian, I support it whole-heartedly.

To use the not-withstanding clause to of prevented it would of been heinous.
And it is only really in there for symbolic purposes.

The only time it has been used was in Quebec and we all know how that one goes...

But again at least here the two are usualy mushed into one unless you have a purly civil one

Sure; and I see no problem with that from an efficiency point of view - provided the combination is allowed by both Church and legislator.
So a religion can be free to say "we do not let gays join in holy matrimony" or "we do not allow outsiders to marry into our faith" or even "only a union of whiteskinned people can get the blessing of our Lord". That does not mean the law should not recognise these unions.
Conversely, some religions like to wed children with adults, one man with thirty seven wifes, brothers with sister and so on and so on. That does not necessarily mean the law should embrace those unions as well.

So, I received an e-mail the other day. You can read an article that says basically the same thing as the e-mail here:

http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/

Rather than sign the petition, I wrote the following e-mail to my Member of Parliament:



So, if you're Canadian and believe that marriage is a right that should be extended to same-sex couples, please send a letter or e-mail to your MP.

The contact information can be found by finding your MP here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp?Language=E&param=c
and clicking on his or her name.

If you wish to sign Restore Marriage Canada's online petition, you can do so here:
http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/aboutthepetition.cfm

This is a democracy, folks. Let's do it.

hanging out with us crazy americans too much me thinks..lol

First of all, what the heck is the "traditional definition of marriage"? In Victorian times, the definition of marriage would have been that a young man of means approaches a girl's father to negotiate a suitably dowry. The institution of marriage has evolved since that time and will continue to do so. Anyone who tries to freeze it in time at some arbitrary point that suits them is in denial.

Second of all, this is not just a question of quality rights, but freedom of religion. My church happens to think that same-sex marriage is compatible with our Christian beliefs. Why should the government step in and legislate a definition of marriage that elevates someone else's interpretation of the Bible above ours?

I'm another Canadian who fully supports same sex marriages and doesn't feel it was shoved down our throats. Were you in Alberta by any chance when you talked to all these people who are against the idea? I was thrilled when they legalized it, and i'm lucky enough to live in a region that is represented by the NDP both federally and provincially.

Thank Goodness America is a traditional Christian nation under God. Now that door was opened in Canada,and it'll be in and out of there courts for years. I think it was sensible for the President to not open that up for debate here at home. There's too much else going on that's important to waste time and money on any liberal nonsense.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.

Not anymore. It's a government thing.

I dont mind Gay Marriage being legal, what I dislike is how we got it. Instead of booting off MPs that vote against it, which can resemble nothing more then dictatorship, have a real free vote on it. The government and laws are run by the people, therefore they should decide on whether or not gay marriage should be legal. We are the employers and they are the employees.

Because it was passed by a majority in parliament representing the Canadian public.

The only reason it's being brought up is because of Harper and his neo-con agenda.

No, get your facts straight.

It was *majority* because Paul Martin stated that he would boot anyone in his party that voted against it.

I just e-mailed Boshcoff to let him know that I stand for equal rights, and allowing same sex marriages to stand.
Even though he's one of the few Liberals who voted against it, he's my representative in Ottawa, so I let him know how I feel. Who knows? Maybe one person's argument can make a difference... although I have my doubts.

Canada City']No, get your facts straight.

It was *majority* because Paul Martin stated that he would boot anyone in his party that voted against it.

It's true, that applied to his cabinet. However, everyone else had a free vote, as was shown by my own representative for Thunder Bay... *growl* On the one hand, at least he's honest, on the other I hate this city and its conservative views. :p

Canada City']No, get your facts straight.

It was *majority* because Paul Martin stated that he would boot anyone in his party that voted against it.You mean his cabinet.

Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman.
Marriage does not have to be a "religious ceremony". Many people get married without the "benefit" of clergy.

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.

Though our neighbor to the north is, in it's self-explanitory name, "Canada", they still have their heads on their shoulders, and when you get right down to it, are really great people.

I admire Canada. Not all the time, but overall, they're pretty good.

GO CANADA! :D
Then you need to look harder. Where were you meeting these Canadians anyway, Alberta?

I have rarely met anyone who was so ardently against this idea. They've already gotten the people the right to marry, and now they're going to take it away? WTF! There is nothing wrong with same sex marriage, and the "equal but seperate" argument does not work because then you are discriminating against them. Marriage is not just a religious idea anymore, it's entrenched in society, just like homosexuality is. So just grow up and accept it!

So, I received an e-mail the other day. You can read an article that says basically the same thing as the e-mail here:

http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/

Rather than sign the petition, I wrote the following e-mail to my Member of Parliament:

So, if you're Canadian and believe that marriage is a right that should be extended to same-sex couples, please send a letter or e-mail to your MP.

The contact information can be found by finding your MP here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp?Language=E&param=c
and clicking on his or her name.

If you wish to sign Restore Marriage Canada's online petition, you can do so here:
http://www.restoremarriagecanada.ca/restoremarriagecanada/aboutthepetition.cfm

This is a democracy, folks. Let's do it.
Apparently the above advocacy group is affiliated with the American based United Families International. A few words from the President of UFI (http://www.unitedfamilies.org/Slater_France.asp):

Dear Defender of Marriage,

Two recent news items provide important lessons on how we can either protect traditional marriage in the United States or how we can lose this critical fight.

The first item is a report issued by the special commission of the French Parliament that spent more than a year investigating, holding hearings and even conducting fact finding trips to countries that have made drastic changes in their family laws, particularly in the area of same-sex "marriage" and adoption.

The commission's controversial findings have electr if ied the debate on these issues. They strongly recommended that France not legalize same-sex "marriage," not permit same-sex adoption and not allow what they call "medically assisted procreation" for homosexual couples. They made these recommendations "to affirm and protect children's rights and the primacy of those rights over adults' aspirations."

It would appear that the agenda is much broader based than "same sex" marriages?

Then you need to look harder. Where were you meeting these Canadians anyway, Alberta?

I have rarely met anyone who was so ardently against this idea. They've already gotten the people the right to marry, and now they're going to take it away? WTF! There is nothing wrong with same sex marriage, and the "equal but seperate" argument does not work because then you are discriminating against them. Marriage is not just a religious idea anymore, it's entrenched in society, just like homosexuality is. So just grow up and accept it!

I agree, most of the people I know either don't really care, or don't care enough... or they are personally affronted by the idea that gay marriage shouldn't exist.

I personally have zero problems with gay marriage. I don't agree that religious leaders should have to marry people under these conditions, but there are multiple venues for same sex couples so that people who aren't comforatable with the idea don't have to include it in their everyday lives.

I do have to say however, that the issue isn't so high on my personal agenda that I believe that it is the overriding principle of a conservative government, therefore you should always vote Liberal. That mentality disturbs me... At the very least, every issue should be debatable in Parliament, including this issue, as well as our current Afghanistan issues.

I agree, most of the people I know either don't really care, or don't care enough... or they are personally affronted by the idea that gay marriage shouldn't exist.

I personally have zero problems with gay marriage. I don't agree that religious leaders should have to marry people under these conditions, but there are multiple venues for same sex couples so that people who aren't comforatable with the idea don't have to include it in their everyday lives.

I do have to say however, that the issue isn't so high on my personal agenda that I believe that it is the overriding principle of a conservative government, therefore you should always vote Liberal. That mentality disturbs me... At the very least, every issue should be debatable in Parliament, including this issue, as well as our current Afghanistan issues.
:eek: HERETIC! :p

yes, but debating this issue in parliament would take months. Our system of government is not exactly the most efficient one in the world. The government needs to debate and figure out health care, child care, education, and Afganistan before they even begin to think about debating same sex marriage again.

:eek: HERETIC! :p

yes, but debating this issue in parliament would take months. Our system of government is not exactly the most efficient one in the world. The government needs to debate and figure out health care, child care, education, and Afganistan before they even begin to think about debating same sex marriage again.
Actually, I would rather that the Conservatives try to deal with this issue right now rather than later if they win a majority. They would definitely lose this vote with the present mix of politicians, and then it would go away like it should.

Actually, I would rather that the Conservatives try to deal with this issue right now rather than later if they win a majority. They would definitely lose this vote with the present mix of politicians, and then it would go away like it should.
As long as there is super-fanatical loud-mouthed bible nuts around, the issue's never going to go away. I'm still counting on Stevie screwing up badly enough for the country to kick his ass out of Parliament.

:eek: HERETIC! :p

yes, but debating this issue in parliament would take months. Our system of government is not exactly the most efficient one in the world. The government needs to debate and figure out health care, child care, education, and Afganistan before they even begin to think about debating same sex marriage again.

Note: I think the issue should have been debated in the first place, rather than forced down everyone's throats, much like our Afghanistan situation. I think we're past the point of debate on both issues now...

And I don't see any reason why we can't debate on all of those issues. After all, our politicians are paid to debate and vote.

Note: I think the issue should have been debated in the first place, rather than forced down everyone's throats, much like our Afghanistan situation. I think we're past the point of debate on both issues now...

And I don't see any reason why we can't debate on all of those issues. After all, our politicians are paid to debate and vote.
Our politicians are kind of like the public works construction workers in Canada. They just kind of pretend they are working, when in reality, they're lazing around and living off the public's money because they're paid by the hour.

Our politicians are kind of like the public works construction workers in Canada. They just kind of pretend they are working, when in reality, they're lazing around and living off the public's money because they're paid by the hour.

THEY'RE PAID BY THE HOUR? WHAT THE HELL ARE WE THINKING?

I think it's time to move for payment by 'piece work' by our politicians... ;)

THEY'RE PAID BY THE HOUR? WHAT THE HELL ARE WE THINKING?

I think it's time to move for payment by 'piece work' by our politicians... ;)
then we're going to find ourselves lacking political candidates and end up being ruled by morons who can't do anything else.

*shudder*

Note: I think the issue should have been debated in the first place, rather than forced down everyone's throats, much like our Afghanistan situation. I think we're past the point of debate on both issues now...

And I don't see any reason why we can't debate on all of those issues. After all, our politicians are paid to debate and vote.
It really wasn't rammed down Canadians' throats. During the 2004 election campaign, the Liberals promised a free vote on the issue:

Same-sex Marriage

The Liberal government under Chretien posed a reference to the Supreme Court on whether draft legislation allowing same-sex marriages is constitutional. The Martin government has asked the hearing until the fall. The Liberals would allow a free vote in the House of Commons on this issue.

The Liberals were fulfilling their mandate, before the House was brought down by the Opposition. If anything, the Conservatives forced the issue by continually looking for ways to bring down the government.

then we're going to find ourselves lacking political candidates and end up being ruled by morons who can't do anything else.

*shudder*


I suppose you haven't heard of the theory that states that in a capitalist society, the 'best' people gravitate towards the higher paying jobs, which are usually in private markets... meaning that our civil servants are 'what's left'...

It really wasn't rammed down Canadians' throats. During the 2004 election campaign, the Liberals promised a free vote on the issue:

Same-sex Marriage

The Liberal government under Chretien posed a reference to the Supreme Court on whether draft legislation allowing same-sex marriages is constitutional. The Martin government has asked the hearing until the fall. The Liberals would allow a free vote in the House of Commons on this issue.

The Liberals were fulfilling their mandate, before the House was brought down by the Opposition. If anything, the Conservatives forced the issue by continually looking for ways to bring down the government.

The 2004 election campaign? Didn't our spineless PM of the day just refer the issue to the Supreme Court rather than put the issue to debate in Parliament?

I suppose you haven't heard of the theory that states that in a capitalist society, the 'best' people gravitate towards the higher paying jobs, which are usually in private markets... meaning that our civil servants are 'what's left'...
yeah, but being in the Liberal party is still quite lucrative. But if you take away their fixed wage...
the only thing I don't understand is why some people would go into Canadian politics for the "fame". All Canadians know the president of the US, but half my school don't know who the PM of Canada is. :confused:

The 2004 election campaign? Didn't our spineless PM of the day just refer the issue to the Supreme Court rather than put the issue to debate in Parliament?
I do believe the answer to your question was in my last post?

Same-sex Marriage

The Liberal government under Chretien posed a reference to the Supreme Court on whether draft legislation allowing same-sex marriages is constitutional. The Martin government has asked the hearing until the fall. The Liberals would allow a free vote in the House of Commons on this issue.

It was already legislation that was drafted and the Liberals did the right thing by exploring the viability of their proposed legislation. Why pass legislation that could prove unconstitutional?

yeah, but being in the Liberal party is still quite lucrative. But if you take away their fixed wage...
the only thing I don't understand is why some people would go into Canadian politics for the "fame". All Canadians know the president of the US, but half my school don't know who the PM of Canada is. :confused:

Could explain why so many young people don't bother to vote...

Could explain why so many young people don't bother to vote...
Or they're just lazy. It's sad, because so many potential NDP votes are going to waste.

I do believe the answer to your question was in my last post?

Same-sex Marriage

The Liberal government under Chretien posed a reference to the Supreme Court on whether draft legislation allowing same-sex marriages is constitutional. The Martin government has asked the hearing until the fall. The Liberals would allow a free vote in the House of Commons on this issue.

It was already legislation that was drafted and the Liberals did the right thing by exploring the viability of their proposed legislation. Why pass legislation that could prove unconstitutional?

Fair enough.

I have no problem with the issue per se, but it definitely seemed like Martin wanted to avoid an issue which would upset his minority government by claiming he had no control over the issue.

At some point, the whole thing was legalised, no? Was there a vote held? And was it a 'free' vote?

Or they're just lazy. It's sad, because so many potential NDP votes are going to waste.

You obviously don't live in Ontario...

All Canadians know the president of the US, but half my school don't know who the PM of Canada is. :confused:
I find that hard to believe. When I was in school.....many.many, moons ago, my fellow students were very knowledgeable about both countries leaders.

You obviously don't live in Ontario...
no. But then again, BC doesn't vote like the rest of Canada. My riding has always been NDP.
I find that hard to believe. When I was in school.....many.many, moons ago, my fellow students were very knowledgeable about both countries leaders.
Try it. I dare you. Go to a normal suburbian high school and ask them who the president of the US is. I'm almost sure they'll all know it's Bush, with all the buzz around him. Then ask them who the PM of Canada is. I'll be you'll get a blank stare half the time.

At some point, the whole thing was legalised, no? Was there a vote held? And was it a 'free' vote?
Yes it was legalized by a free vote in the House. The only exception was that Liberal cabinet ministers were basically informed that they had to support the government's position. This led to some cabinet ministers resigning.

We should also remember that several Provinces had already legalized same-sex marriage before the federal legislation was introduced:

Same-sex marriage has been legal:

in the province of Ontario since 10 June 2003;
in the province of British Columbia since 8 July 2003;
in the province of Quebec since 19 March 2004;
in the Yukon territory since 14 July 2004;
in the province of Manitoba since 16 September 2004;
in the province of Nova Scotia since 24 September 2004;
in the province of Saskatchewan since 5 November 2004;
in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 21 December 2004;
in the province of New Brunswick since 23 June 2005

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.

A little more background information:

A draft of what would become Bill C-38 was released on 17 July 2003 by then-Justice minister Martin Cauchon. Prior to its introduction, he submitted the bill as a reference to the Supreme Court, asking the court to rule on whether limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if same-sex civil unions are an acceptable alternative. On December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose not to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.

Why? Because mairrage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman. Make a new type of union for same-sex couples, I say.
If it is a religious ceremony then why are there laws about it?

In all honesty, I have not met one Canadian who liked the legalization of Gay Marriage.

They all feel it was crammed down their throats, and they want to reverse it.

How has it changed their lives?

In fact, surveys have shown most gays and lesbians (in the US) are, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.
That's an unbelievable claim; do you have proof for it?

It's only a very small radical faction of extreme leftists and gay "rights" activists who want gay marriage.
Actually, the people who want to ban gay marriage are more extreme, by the standards of the western world.

I suppose you haven't heard of the theory that states that in a capitalist society, the 'best' people gravitate towards the higher paying jobs, which are usually in private markets... meaning that our civil servants are 'what's left'...

That assumes people are only motivated by money. In reality, for most people, money is a negative, not a positive motivator. If they feel they are earning too little, they are dissatisfied. However, once they are earning a certain amount, they are less and less motivated by more money, and more and more motivated by other factors.

So, I got a reply in the mail today:

Dear Gift-of-God:

I acknowledge reciept and thank you for your e-mail dated as of today in which you inform me about the Restore Marriage Canada's campaign. I have taken note of the text you forwarded me.

The House of Commons passed Bill C-38, giving same-sex couples the same legal right to civil marriage as heterosexual couples. The Civil Marriage Act also recognizes religious freedoms which are already fully protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party will be responsible and principled. We will work hard to make Parliament functionin the interests of Canadians.

On my part, I have consistently supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and I will pursue my efforts in defending the Liberal values.

Once again, I thank you for having shared your views on this matter, and please be assured that you can count on my energy and availability.

Sincerely,

The Honourable ___, M.P.

All typos,if any, are mine.

So, if you are Canadian and want to have your voice heard, contact your MP, or sign the evil petition.Links are in the OP.