Finally. I am proud to be a Canadian at this important juncture, proud that we have become just the 3rd country to embrace this right. At the same time, I am sensitive to the fact that many Canadians do disagree with this legislation, but I hope we can move on without too much division (as opposed to what Harper wants) and that people can calm down about it and just see how it goes.
What I'm really wondering now is whether, with the battle lost, Harper will shut up and settle down for the summer, or whether he will continue to try to use this to rip this country apart (my editorial bias is obvious - I admit!)
ScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
I'm very disappointed in my home riding, Thunder Bay-Superior North. Joe Comuzzi resigned from cabinet rather than vote for same-sex marriage. Apparently this is what his constituents have wanted. I met him when he first ran for Parliament and thought he was a good guy. I guess he still is, but man, I'm glad I left Thunder Bay.
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3269 times:
What I find strange is that Comuzzi felt he needed to leave Cabinet. As is well-known, the liberal leadership allowed a free vote of conscious among its members. Comuzzi could certainly have voted with his (or his constituents'( heart and still have kept his cabinet position. There is really no point in him making a big point about leaving, unless it is for intentional posturing for some reason.
I have spent some time in the Northern Manitoba riding this year, and there was huge pressure on their NDP MP to vote against the legislation, which would obviously be against the party line. I don't know how she ended up voting, as I'm not sure whether the NDP allowed this to be a free vote as well.
How does extending equality rights to gay and lesbian couples in any way detract from the religious freedom of others (namely social conservatives)? How is my freedom to marry my partner in any way affect someone else's right to practice their religion? Does it in any way impinge on their ability to practise the rights or rituals of any religious denomination? Nobody is asking anyone to change their religious beliefs. I honestly don't get it.
SQuared From Canada, joined May 2005, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
Quoting Jean Leloup (Thread starter): What I'm really wondering now is whether, with the battle lost, Harper will shut up and settle down for the summer, or whether he will continue to try to use this to rip this country apart (my editorial bias is obvious - I admit!)
Unfortunately, I think Harper will continue to blab on about this topic forever more. He's already threatened that the "battle over marriage" isn't over yet. His rants on the BQ and NDP cooperating with the Liberals on the bill, have become pointless, and it simply doesn't help the image he's trying to create.
In reality, I think most Canadians are tired of the issue, and the majority have accepted the fact that same-sex marriage is here to stay. So Harper should really try finding another issue to concentrate on (i.e. Sponsorship Scandal). Gay marriage as an issue, isn't nearly as explosive in Canada as it is in the United States. So Harper: Stop stealing from Rove's Book!
On a positive note, this is good news for Canada, and it reaffirms my belief that Canada is one of the greatest places to live in the world.
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3229 times:
Quoting PA110 (Reply 4): What I find sad however is the manner in which the conflict is framed:
...pitting supporters of equality rights against those who are defending religious freedoms...
I don't understand why these two principles have to be mutually exclusive.
The "concern" about same-sex rights impinging on religious freedoms is that the legislation might mean that religious organizations would be forced to marry people of the same sex when they did not agree with such a unions. Your suspcions are correct, though: this is not a legitimate concern, and this "fear" is really just a straw man for the Conservatives to attack. The fact is that religious officials are free to marry or not marry whomever they choose. No one can "force" a religious group to bless or conduct the marriage of any two heterosexual people, either. So this really makes no difference in this regard. It only allows religious groups MORE freedom in their handling of relationships, not less. However, many people refuse to see this and keep on fighting it under this false pretence.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 3142 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3212 times:
A truly SAD day for Canada.
The issue, despite what the Gays say is NOT about Human Rights, but rather what WORD is used to define those rights.
Unable to define their own relationships with a word to define Homosexual or Lesbian Unions, they Hi-jacked the historical definition of the word Marriage. That of "One Man and One Woman".
I have absolutely no objection to Gay Unions, or whatever unique new word they wish to create to sanctify their unions. But for heaven's sake, why not let the term Marriage have its own unique definition. It's historical definition.
For me, this is truly a Sad Day for Canada and Traditional Marriage.
Johnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2663 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3180 times:
Great job Canada! One helluva country!
I would imagine that various hateful religious groups will continue to funnel money into Harper's pocket. He's found his bread-and-butter hot button issue, not for Canadians, but for thick-headed American contributors.
SRQCrosscheck From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3180 times:
Quoting Photopilot (Reply 10): they Hi-jacked the historical definition of the word Marriage.
the historical definition of "racial relations" for many different groups of people has often included slavery, subjugation, prejudice, etc., etc. Just because something is based in antiquity doesn't make it just.
Slavery was the American South's "peculiar institution." Southerns like to justify it historically because the Roman Republic and Greek democracies had slaves, too. Also: Southern economy/society would collapse without slavery (interesting when you think about what is said now about including homosexuals in marriage).
Great for Canada!
Interestingly, though, slavery in America was historically unique in that you were born into slavery, whereas in Rome and Greece, you could be born of slave parents but be free. (but that's totally unrelated, just today's trivia)
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 8230 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3168 times:
Good on ya Canada, It's nice to see that equality of rights for all people regardless of gender/sexual orientation has been considered, and put into law. For those that don't like it my answer to them is, that's cool - it's not like you have to marry a homosexual just because they want to marry the love of their life. If you have an attitude like that you're unlikely to have gay friends anyway so won't be going to their weddings anyway.. In short it won't affect you in the slightest... move on...
SKYSERVICE_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 3): What I find strange is that Comuzzi felt he needed to leave Cabinet. As is well-known, the liberal leadership allowed a free vote of conscious among its members. Comuzzi could certainly have voted with his (or his constituents'( heart and still have kept his cabinet position. There is really no point in him making a big point about leaving, unless it is for intentional posturing for some reason.
Cabinet was required to vote party line while the rest of the Liberal caucus was permitted to vote freely.
Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 3): I'm not sure whether the NDP allowed this to be a free vote as well.
I am 95% percent sure they were required to vote party line, howerver, there is always that 5%
Quoting SQuared (Reply 8): Unfortunately, I think Harper will continue to blab on about this topic forever more. He's already threatened that the "battle over marriage" isn't over yet.
CBC was reporting that he has already stated that he would repeal the legislation following an open vote in Parliament if he is ever elected PM.
Quoting SQuared (Reply 8): In reality, I think most Canadians are tired of the issue, and the majority have accepted the fact that same-sex marriage is here to stay.
Not quite a majority, actually it depends. Most polls on the issue usually fluctuate between the 45-55% range depending on the mood of the day, either being in favor or opposed to, however, most are usually in support of.
I'm perfectly fine with Civil unions. Once again, it is the word 'marriage' that I have trouble with. The definition now being "between two persons", as opposed to "between one man, and one women". I don't think its right, and many other Canadians don't think its right. I do not believe the fight is over yet.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4613 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Quoting Basas (Reply 22): Once again, it is the word 'marriage' that I have trouble with.
Ok, fair enough. It will be much more difficult to repeal this once its been passed into law. A political see saw with this would surely be in the benefit of no one.
The people I have the most problem with is advocates of these state bannings of gay marriage in the states that also outlaw civil unions and MANY other rights. Also with President Bush speaking about his approval for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage on one hand, then around debate time sounding compassionate and very much for equal rights granted via civil unions. I do have this question for the President and other conservatives: where is your civil union legislation?
SFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
I'm all for civil rights for gay couples in Canada and elsewhere. It saddens me that in order to achieve that, a minority has changed an institution so important and sacred for most people.
However, I'm sure that people of good will in Canada an elsewhere will keep the good fight, defending family as the fundament of our society, and always doing it free of bigotry and prejudice against gays or any other group.
: It also saddens me that in order to achieve that, a minority has changed an institution so important and sacred for most people by legalizing marriag
: Now we both know that is just not going to happen.
: In reality, about the only thing the Conservatives can really do about it is use the Notwithstanding Clause. This is not at all popular, because esse
: For non-religious people, marriage is just a civil contract signed, with both partners promising each other support and sharing of rights and duties,
: Yaay! Way to go Canada I am glad to see that more and more countries are following the footsteps of the Netherlands. This is good news since it gets u
: Who ever said Canadians did nothing but lick maple leaves? LOL. Good job Canada. Another victory for human rights! Now, just get your asses down to th
: You got that straight. (Pardon the pun). So you object to someone who says things like: 'The painting was a marriage of eastern and western styles'?
: I don't think it was right, and many other Canadians also didn't think it was right, that a proportion of our population was being denied the right t
: In what? Couldn't agree more. If people want to be gay, fine by me, but there should be another term for marriage that should apply to homosexuals. M
: It's always great to hear your perspective on these issues. Unfotrunately, not many people are as open-minded and compassionate as the two of you. I,
: Why are you clinging so fiercely to the words? That definition came about in 1866 - the same era when slavery was rampant, bi-racial unions were ille
: Of course. What's the saying - "Straight but not narrow"? Gays are people just like the rest of us and deserve a loving relationship (and MARRIAGE!)
: Over time the issue will become insignificant. The definition of marriage is just a paradigm. Paradigms are constantly changing. I make a comparisson
: What sacred thoughts go through the minds of these people when they cheat on their spouses, or when they divorce each other, or when they simply just
: The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights." And
: SFOMEX... If you are so against Gay Marriage, then dont marry a guy. See is that simple.
: Indeed. Marry a woman, and be faithful to her until the day either of you dies out of exasperation,