NationStates Jolt Archive

WTF? I didnt even know NB had discriminatory laws :confused: What have they been doing for the past almost 10 years?


The Liberal government is bravely going where the Supreme Court of Canada travelled nine years ago.

On Wednesday, Attorney General T.J. Burke introduced a bill to give same-sex common-law couples the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual common-law partners.

The omnibus bill entitled Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act will amend more than 30 other bills and regulations.

"I am very pleased that our government is moving forward with changes that would bring New Brunswick in line with other Canadian jurisdictions by respecting the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision," said Burke.

"We are one of the last provinces, if not the last province, in the country to move forward on making these particular changes."

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same-sex and opposite-sex common-law partners must be treated equally.

"For several years the previous government did nothing to move on that legislation," said Burke.

He said the Liberal government in the last session extended benefits and obligations to those in gay and lesbian relationships but that it wasn't reflected yet in legislation.

The new legislation affects pensions and allows same-sex common-law partners to enter into domestic contracts and sue if those relationships break down, said Burke.

He also said the legislation would incorporate gender-neutral terminology in references to persons in common-law partnerships and marital relationships.

Official Opposition Leader David Alward said his party wants to review the bill before commenting.

"It is a very large piece of legislation," he said. "It is over 100 pages."

Alward also said the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of equality and the Tories live by the laws of the land.

"There is no issue there," he said.

Alward declined to comment on Burke's allegation that the Tories avoided the subject when they were in power.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/cityregion/article/494052

Nb?

Nb?

New Brunswick, Canada.

Dude most places have discrimitory laws.

I like it how it's called "Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act" but if it were truly to modernise the benefits and obligations they would notice that it is just not marriage and the people involved that make up households. Perhaps they should extend these same benefits for relationships for those living in de-facto relationships who are yet to marry, those who may be living in a similar situation as a married couple such as siblings, friends sharing a house (maybe even buying a house together but not as a couple) plus a whole different range of other new households. Modernisation? Yeah right.

Dude most places have discrimitory laws.

I like it how it's called "Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act" but if it were truly to modernise the benefits and obligations they would notice that it is just not marriage and the people involved that make up households. Perhaps they should extend these same benefits for relationships for those living in de-facto relationships who are yet to marry, those who may be living in a similar situation as a married couple such as siblings, friends sharing a house (maybe even buying a house together but not as a couple) plus a whole different range of other new households. Modernisation? Yeah right.

WTF? I'm afraid you aren't making much sense here. Are you against recognizing same-sex common-law couples because siblings and other non-couples aren't granted the same rights as a married couple? Or are you just babbling?

WTF? I'm afraid you aren't making much sense here. Are you against recognizing same-sex common-law couples because siblings and other non-couples aren't granted the same rights as a married couple? Or are you just babbling?

To the first question; No.
To the second; Kinda I was actually having a go at the title of the Bill, and it does not just have to be non-couples for example a de-facto couple may have a kid, a house do the same things as married couples but they aren't allowed to get the same benefits as a married couple because they don't have a marriage license.

To the first question; No.
To the second; Kinda I was actually having a go at the title of the Bill, and it does not just have to be non-couples for example a de-facto couple may have a kid, a house do the same things as married couples but they aren't allowed to get the same benefits as a married couple because they don't have a marriage license.

You are aware the bill has to do, not with licensed marriage, but common-law marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

You are aware the bill has to do, not with licensed marriage, but common-law marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

No I wasn't aware of that, so most of my rant is now redundant. So it will be covering those sort of relationships?

This doesn't surprise me. Many governments in Canada have been lax at changing their laws to conform with current constitutional interpretations. The Tories are the worst offenders, but provincial Liberal governments aren't epecially fast either. Usually, it's the local NDP who end up agitating for this legislation.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc180504.htm

No I wasn't aware of that, so most of my rant is now redundant. So it will be covering those sort of relationships?

Yes and the bizarre thing that gay civil marriage is already allowed there. So why did it take so long for them to change common law marriage?

Yes and the bizarre thing that gay civil marriage is already allowed there. So why did it take so long for them to change common law marriage?

Because it isn't vote winning as much as allowing gay marriage.

http://www.runjenrun.com/archives/j_mahohey.jpg

I feel that we need more threads about same-sex marriage.