Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada: Same-sex Marriage Bill Is Passed.  
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html

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!)

Jean Leloup


Next flight.... who knows.
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Good it's over. Lets move on.

Now, let those little swines in Ottawa have the Summer off to think of new ways to screw us.

Sorry....just in a bad mood.

Andreas



I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2520 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.


But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2515 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.



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2017 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Congratulations Canada!

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. This is the very same argument I was making in the Civil Av thread about Airlines and Gay Rights:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/2192178/

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.



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineYooYoo From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 6057 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

Is there a list of who voted yay or nay?


I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Per the CBC, Cabinet ministers were expected to vote in line with the official Liberal party position - so for the legislation.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...2005/06/28/comizzi-quit050628.html

Martin has said the vote on same-sex would be a free vote for backbench Liberals, but cabinet ministers are under orders to vote in favour of the bill.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineAC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

I have always been a proud Canadian, but even more so after this legislation has passed.

Congratualtions Canada, once again, a world leader!


User currently offlineSQuared From Canada, joined May 2005, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2500 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.

SQuared


User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2475 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.

PA110,

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.

Jean Leloup



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2826 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2458 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.


User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Way to go Canada. Once again showing the world how progressive and forward-thinking you are.

And the US continues to play catch up!

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

I was married in Toronto on February 28, 2004. I have been hoping this would be finalized and I could feel safe that my marriage would stay recognized.

THANKS CANADA!!!


User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2602 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2426 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.

He should be quite well off down the road.


User currently offlineSRQCrosscheck From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2426 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)

[Edited 2005-06-29 05:35:11]

[Edited 2005-06-29 06:00:23]

User currently offlineAerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7396 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2414 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...

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Here's to Canada. A Lebatt's to any Canadian MP who takes me up on the offer. I am even more proud to say I have been recently dating a Canadian woman


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSKYSERVICE_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1427 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2380 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.


User currently offlineBasas From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Very, very unfortunate. I don't believe the fight is over yet.

User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting Basas (Reply 18):
Very, very unfortunate. I don't believe the fight is over yet.

Oh great, you. Typical one line response with no reasoning (if there is any).


Do enlighten us all.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineBasas From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 19):
Oh great, you. Typical one line response with no reasoning (if there is any).


Do enlighten us all.

What reasoning do you want? Marriage is between one man, and one women. There, done.

The fight WILL continue. Alberta is still strongly against. Many in my home province are against. Conservatives, as a party, are against. Things could turn around.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Quoting Basas (Reply 20):
Conservatives, as a party, are against.

Thank you, Captain obvious.

Quoting Basas (Reply 20):
Things could turn around.

Good luck with that.

What are your views on civil unions and the rights they contain?



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineBasas From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 21):
Thank you, Captain obvious.

My point is, if Conservatives can get into power, or increasing power, they may be able to do something about it.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 21):
What are your views on civil unions and the rights they contain?

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.


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4391 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2346 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?



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2338 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.  worried 

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.  crossfingers 


25 Garnetpalmetto : 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
26 JpetekYXMD80 : Now we both know that is just not going to happen.
27 Post contains links SQuared : 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
28 MD11Engineer : For non-religious people, marriage is just a civil contract signed, with both partners promising each other support and sharing of rights and duties,
29 Post contains images FlyAUA : 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
30 UAL747 : 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
31 QANTASforever : 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'?
32 ScarletHarlot : 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
33 Jutes85 : 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
34 Xpat : 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,
35 QANTASforever : 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
36 ScarletHarlot : 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!)
37 AC_A340 : Over time the issue will become insignificant. The definition of marriage is just a paradigm. Paradigms are constantly changing. I make a comparisson
38 Jaysit : 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
39 AC320 : 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
40 Mt99 : SFOMEX... If you are so against Gay Marriage, then dont marry a guy. See is that simple.
41 Jaysit : Indeed. Marry a woman, and be faithful to her until the day either of you dies out of exasperation,
42 OzarkD9S : Canada: Please annex US. ASAP!
43 A332 : I love how the backwards rural Albertans suddenly jumped up and declared war on the rest of Canada for allowing such blasphemy to become law... Forget
44 1MillionFlyer : Please give it a rest, your 100 posts against anything "gay" is gettig so old, and no one (except you and AllstarFlyer) seem to care. I just hope you
45 Biggles : Don't forget everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have no problem with this ruling. Canada is all about tolerance,after all,even for "whacko" Alb
46 SRQCrosscheck : I like how social conservatives seemed more eager in this debate to define marriage by sex rather than by love. Ironic.
47 Dasa : Well done Canada. ..........................
48 LTBEWR : The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada to me it is a deep insult to and creates great difficulty for people of traditional faith to be involv
49 Post contains links and images Barcode : Not unless their only reason for being involved with the government is due to their faith. I'm not completely clear on the U.S situation; but in the
50 Xpat : Just read this elsewhere this morning. The enlightenment continues.
51 Greasespot : Unlike south of the border Church and State are separate......completely...and should be. If someone takes a gov't job they do not have a right to dis
52 SKYSERVICE_330 : The Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is a Roman Catholic and has been a strong driving force behind this legislation. He made it very clear that
53 AC_A340 : I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't oppose same-sex marriages. The whole concept of marriage is about love, and wanting to spend the rest of your life to
54 Jean Leloup : And in any case, since the Roman Catholic Church doesn't rrecognize the legitimiacy of civl marriages of any kind to begin with, the point is complet
55 HotelEchoFox : YEEHAW Canada!!! Anybody got room for a country-less future American expat? HEF (Things have gotten pretty freakin' scary in the States.)
56 1MillionFlyer : this is just baseless and totally without merit. I was raised Castholic and you are SO very wrong about people getting excommunicated.
57 Johnboy : If people are getting excommunicated in North America for not following the letter of the law in the Catholic church, then there won't be much in the
58 Slider : Ah, yes, Canada, that wonderful nondescript northern neighbor that is the paradigm of progressive thinking. Once again. ??? Don't let the door hit yo
59 Post contains images Allstarflyer : Am I to understand that you don't like me 1MillionFlyer? And "bias" is, at times, simply in the eye of the beholder. -R
60 Jaysit : You got that right. That wonderful non-descript neighbor that's also our largest trading partner. Better be nice to it. What a load of crap. Freedom
61 Post contains images 1MillionFlyer : I like you just fine Allstar. I respect your opinion, I just got tired of responding to your posts last weekend, you wore me out and possibly induced
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
Same-Sex Marriage In Canada Come Thursday posted Tue Dec 7 2004 23:43:53 by SKYSERVICE_330
Same-sex Marriage Demonstrations In Italy posted Sat Jan 14 2006 18:23:22 by ManuCH
Same-Sex Marriage OK'd In Spain posted Thu Jun 30 2005 18:28:23 by Johnboy
NY Judge Strikes Down Ban On Same-Sex Marriage posted Fri Feb 4 2005 21:13:57 by RJpieces
Majority Of Canadians Support Same Sex Marriage! posted Thu May 10 2001 19:16:04 by Chrisa330
Same Sex Mountie Marriage posted Sat Jul 1 2006 04:57:21 by Greasespot
NJ Court Recognizes Same-sex Unions posted Wed Oct 25 2006 22:16:23 by Dtwclipper
AFA Sues M.S.U. Over Same-sex Benefits posted Thu Jul 6 2006 01:46:23 by Dtwclipper
And You Think Your Cell Phone Bill Is Bad... posted Mon Apr 10 2006 23:10:33 by JakeOrion