Canada legalises gay marriages

Quote:

---

Canada legalises gay marriages

21.07.05 10.50am

OTTAWA - Canada formally became the fourth country in the world to legalise gay marriages today after the country's Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation.

Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain already permit same-sex marriages, and a number of Canadian provinces have been allowing such legal unions for some time.

The Senate upper chamber - dominated by members from the governing Liberal party - voted 47-21 to pass the law.

The House of Commons had already approved the legislation despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and from religious groups who portrayed it as an attack on organised religion.

The law came into power today when a Supreme Court judge approved it. That job would normally be done by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, who represents Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state. But Clarkson is recovering after having had a pacemaker fitted earlier this month.

The Liberal government said it had to draw up the legislation to allow same-sex marriages across the country after courts in eight of the 10 provinces ruled that a heterosexual-only definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

Opponents fear churches and religious officials could be sued for refusing to carry out same sex marriages.

However, while the legislation grants gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages, it makes clear that religious officials would not be obliged to marry same-sex couples.

Some provinces have already become something of a tourist destination for gay couples from other countries who are seeking to get married.

Canadian residency requirements are less strict than those in other countries that allow gay marriage, but the new unions may not be recognised in the couples' home countries.

- REUTERS

---

I cant believe no one else posted this. My condolences ~D

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Ok, my dual citizenship will now become singular citizenship. Germany is too Catholic to allow this in the near future.

Congratulations et félicitations Canada!

:balloon2: ~:cheers: :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Ok, my dual citizenship will now become singular citizenship. Germany is too Catholic to allow this in the near future.

---

Is Germany more catholic than Spain? I doubt it.

The ruling party is primarily Catholic though, it is the German Christian party. I can't believe Canada allowed this. Pah.

This might be good for the U.S. Some of our population might move up north. ~D

Quote:

---

This might be good for the U.S. Some of our population might move up north.

---

Funny I was thinking the same thing. Not only that but chances are they would be mostly liberals. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Funny I was thinking the same thing. Not only that but chances are they would be mostly liberals. ~;)

---

Maybe, but Im against gay marriage so I could care less if such people left. Sounds like the day of the moderates will rise. :charge:

Quote:

---

Now if only people down here would grow a spine, and allow Gays to get the legal benefits of Marriage somehow. I realize that full-on Marriage is offensive to religious people, but it's simply cruel to not allow any form of Legal Partnership for these people.

---

For the most part I agree with you here. But why should being gay have anything to do with it? Any people who wish to form of Legal Partnership should be able to gay or straight. Just dont call it marriage but what it is a Legal Partnership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For the most part I agree with you here. But why should being gay have anything to do with it? Any people who wish to form of Legal Partnership should be able to gay or straight. Just dont call it marriage but what it is a Legal Partnership.

---

Personally, I just don't see a need for it- but I agree, if we're going to do it, lets not be discriminatory and make it applicable to all and not just gays.

Religion has no place in this disscussion. Were talking about recognition by the state not by god here. Dragging religion into it only muddies up the waters.

Quote:

---

I would be interested to hear how many Religious people on this Board would be opposed to this:

Make one legal secular thingummer that will bing any two people legally and give the benefits of Marriage--Don't call it marriage. That way, the legal process is totally separate from the religious process, and someone can still go follow it up with what they see as the proper way to unite in matromony if they please.

---

Other than Nav would venture very few.

as a lesbian friend of mine wrote:
"So many of the lesbians in our community are thinking that we have no rights in regards to common law marriage, or domestic partnership. The part that people are leaving out is this: WE HAVE ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS MARRIED COUPLES, IF YOU CHOOSE TO FILE FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP! the only thing we are being denied would be the tax breaks."

Quote:

---

as a lesbian friend of mine wrote:
"So many of the lesbians in our community are thinking that we have no rights in regards to common law marriage, or domestic partnership. The part that people are leaving out is this: WE HAVE ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS MARRIED COUPLES, IF YOU CHOOSE TO FILE FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP! the only thing we are being denied would be the tax breaks."

---

I say give them that also. But I also think that if me and a friend want to buy and share a home we should be allowed the same rights. Love and marriage straight and gay have nothing to do with this. Its just a legal contract between consenting adults.

Domestic Partners Registries [02 Apr 2005|05:31am]



NATIONAL
United States House of Representatives December 1995
Members of the House their staff now have the option of
registering their same-sex partners as "significant others"
for the purposes of House Rule 52, which prohibits them from
accepting gifts from anyone besides family and personal friends.
"Significant others" may be same-sex or opposite-sex.

Arizona
Tucson (Pima) December 2003

California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA October 2, 1999
Arcata (Humboldt) 1998
Berkeley (Alameda) October 1991
Open to Anyone
Cathedral City (Riverside) September 1991
Davis (Yolo) May 1994
Laguna Beach (Orange) June 1990
Long Beach
(Los Angeles) March 18, 1997
Los Angeles
(Los Angeles) May 6, 1999
Los Angeles County March 23, 1999
Oakland (Alameda) June 1996
Palo Alto (Santa Clara) December 1995
Sacramento (Sacramento) October 1992
San Francisco
(San Francisco) November 1990
Santa Barbara County July 1999
West Hollywood
(Los Angeles) February 1985

Colorado
Denver (Denver) December 3, 1999

Connecticut
Hartford (hartford) June 1993
Symbolic Only, provides no legal or financial benefits.

District of Columbia
Washington D.C. April 1992
Each year since the D.C. Council passed the domestic partners law,
Congress has attached amendments to the city's budget laws barring
the city from using federal and D.C. funds for its implementation.

Florida
Broward County July 12, 1999

Georgia
Atlanta (Fulton) June 1993
Atlanta's right to establish a domestic partnership registry was
upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court in March 1995, with help from
Lambda, in Atlanta et al. v. McKinney et al., 454 S.E.2d 517
(Ga. 1995).

Hawai'i
STATE OF HAWAI'I July 1997

Illinois
Oak Park (Cook) October 1997
On March 17, 1998, symbolic vote reaffirms registry after ballot
initiative challenge.
Same-Sex Couples Only

Iowa
Iowa City (Johnson) Date unavailable

Maine
Portland (Cumberland) June 20, 2001

Massachusetts STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS September 1992
Governor's Executive Order allows state workers to register for
purposes of bereavement leave and visitation rights in state prisons
and hospitals.
Boston (Suffolk) December 1993
Brewster (Barnstable) 1995
Brookline (Norfolk) June 1993
Same-sex couples only
Cambridge (Middlesex) September 1992
Nantucket (Nantucket) April 1996
Northampton (Hampshire) [May 1995]
This measure, approved by the City Council in May of 1995, was
then repealed by voter referendum in November of 1995.
Provincetown (Barnstable) 1993
Not limited to Provincetown residents.

Michigan
Ann Arbor (Washtenaw) November 1991
East Lansing (Ingham) March 1991

Minnesota
Minneapolis (Hennepin) January 1991
[Benefits were invalidated by court order, Lilly v. City of
Minneapolis 1994 WL 315620 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) The Minneapolis
Supreme Court refused to review the state court of appeals'
decision. Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107, rev.
denied, March 31, 1995. Registry remained unaffected.]

Missouri
St. Louis (St. Louis)
March 10, 1997
Executive Order by Mayor Freeman Bosley. Allows visitation in
city hospitals and prisons.

New York
Albany (Albany) June 1996
Ithaca (Tompkins) August 1990
New York City (New York, Kings, Queens, Bronx, Richmond) January 1993
Rochester (Monroe) April 1994

North Carolina
Carrboro (Orange) October 11, 1994
Chapel Hill (Orange) April 24, 1995

Oregon
Ashland (Jackson) October 5, 1999

Washington
Seattle (King) September 6, 1994

Wisconsin Madison (Dane) August 1988
Milwaukee (Milwaukee) September 1, 1999

I dont want them married because it will be easier for them to adopt kids :embarassed: NO child should have to live like that.

Quote:

---

I dont want them married because it will be easier for them to adopt kids NO child should have to live like that.

---

Why is marriage a requirement in the first place? Rosey O Donnel isnt married. Well at least not in the eyes of the law. I wonder if she still considers herself married. She should. I dont think anything other than the welfare of the child should be considered for adoption. Now Im not saying what this is as every case is different.

You can almost smell the KY and leather chaps coming from the winds of my Northern Neighbors. Congrats to Canada for giving a helping hand to the mentally and sexually disturbed portion of their population. Hooray for the Canadians (and thank God I'm living in the US!!!). ~:)

Do you think they'll start recognizing polygamy, incestual, or beastility types of relationships? I would think you would not want to discriminate against other "alternate" lifestyles.

Sorry, wrong thread. I thought this was Apathy Club, but I now realized it was Homophobia Club........ ~;)

Quote:

---

Sorry, wrong thread. I thought this was Apathy Club, but I now realized it was Homophobia Club.......

---

No this is the apethitic Homophobia Club. We dont care about it. Another much over and wrongly used phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No this is the apethitic Homophobia Club. We dont care about it. Another much over and wrongly used phrase.

---

Oh, I am sorry. I didn't intend to offend you. Of course you don't care..... ~:grouphug: ~D

Quote:

---

Oh, I am sorry. I didn't intend to offend you. Of course you don't care....

---

How can you offend me when I dont care? ~:confused:

Hey I have to say that making this legal in your country would be everymans dream if used properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How can you offend me when I dont care? ~:confused:

Hey I have to say that making this legal in your country would be everymans dream if used properly.

---

Sure, no problem. We ALL know that you don't care.... ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:

Gawain do you have amnesia? I posted this the day it happened with the time oh anouncement on the title!

Did everyone forget that, I put a lot of effort into that thread damn it!

Quote:

---

Gawain do you have amnesia? I posted this the day it happened with the time oh anouncement on the title!

Did everyone forget that, I put a lot of effort into that thread damn it!

---

Strange as it only happened today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

The ruling party is primarily Catholic though, it is the German Christian party. I can't believe Canada allowed this. Pah.

---

You are wrong.... The government in Germany is made up of a coalition between the SDP - social democrats, lefties etc - and the Green party - more to the left of the SDP. There might also be some other small parties I am missing out, but they are the two main parts of the government.

The Christian democrats are the opposition and they are odds on to win the election to be held fairly shortly, but don't count the SDP out yet.

As for Germany allowing gay marriage, I reckon it isn't that far off, over here in the UK we already have gay marriage in all but name and the vast, vast, vast majority of people supports it, it is the next logical step to simply legalise gay marriage. When it is legalised in Spain, as it will be shortly and here in the next few years.. Other countries won't be far behind. ~:cheers: About bloody time.

Back onto the thread... Good news, it always amazes me how well Canada ignores all the backward thinking coming from a majority of the people on the other side of their border. Well played Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Gawain do you have amnesia? I posted this the day it happened with the time oh anouncement on the title!

Did everyone forget that, I put a lot of effort into that thread damn it!

---

Byz the game marriage act only became official today as it passed through the 2 rubber stamps (the senate and the governor gen.)and became law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Byz the game marriage act only became official today as it passed through the 2 rubber stamps (the senate and the governor gen.)and became law.

---

True, but those are just formalities. Can the Senate turn down the law? I know for a fact the Governor General can't.

This law was already passed some time ago. Oh well Gawain, as always takes advantage of the technicalities to out do me. ~D

Nevertheless, this is great. Just a small stepping stone to the deterioration of consevativism up here. Keep sending us your liberals guys. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

This law was already passed some time ago. Oh well Gawain, as always takes advantage of the technicalities to out do me.

---

Come on I heard it on the news today so I googled and posted it. Your name or post never even entered my mind.

okay so lets start up the debate again.

1-Oh, what about legalizing beastility and incest, we dont want to descriminate against them.

2-Dont be ignorant, its okay to descriminate against some sexual prefrences, but others you have to fight to legalize.


I agree with person 1 if were going to legalize one strange sexual habit then we have to legalize them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

1-Oh, what about legalizing beastility and incest, we dont want to descriminate against them.

I agree with person 1 if were going to legalize one strange sexual habit then we have to legalize them all.

---

Except that homosexuality is between two consenting couples, neither of which is harmed. Beastiality is not (the animal has not given consent), and incest has the potential for harm to come to any offspring from the relationship.

pets dont consent to being pets, but we still allow it, and i believe that studies have shown that incest with like your second cusin isnt really harmful. btw, what about gay incest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

pets dont consent to being pets

---

True but you draw a line somewhere. That is why there are cruelty to animals laws.

As for incenst, if there is definately no chance of children then go nuts.

I bet some animals might enjoy intamacy with humans. They already think their part of the pack.

My friends dog for example will actuall jump on people's back and get very happy.. ~:eek: and i have heard similiar stories about other dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

okay so lets start up the debate again.

1-Oh, what about legalizing beastility and incest, we dont want to descriminate against them.

2-Dont be ignorant, its okay to descriminate against some sexual prefrences, but others you have to fight to legalize.


I agree with person 1 if were going to legalize one strange sexual habit then we have to legalize them all.

---

Everything should be ok as long as it's between 2 consent adults. Incest between adults no problem.
Bestiality is ok, if the animal in question also have the right to vote in the next president election....... ~:cool:

Quote:

---

True but you draw a line somewhere.

---

We have thank you very much. And here in the US as in most of the world we draw it at a man and a woman.

Quote:

---

Wrong. Many people in the US--enough to count--would draw the line a little farther. Dividing the nation like this over any issue is self-destructive and stupid, and a compromise should be drawn.

---

Wrong 75% of americans oppose gay marriage.

There were all sorts of Polls after the Mass incident . If you inculde civil unions then the numbers change drasticly but I doubt that most Americans will ever back gay marriage..

Rasoforos will translate ( ok i ll change it a bit ) a good old wise Greek proverb:

A cucumber that doesnt grow up your ass, let it grow...


...simple as that, legalising gay marriage doesnt mean you have to go and get married to a guy...so let gay men and lesbian women get married, you dont have to go to the wedding and you dont have to buy them a present. It will only take 1 hour and it will mean a lot to them... ~:)

This is bad news. Ive currently got too much on my plate to get into yet another gay marriage discussion.. the arguments pro and against have been made repeatedly, now its up to the populations of each nation to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

True, but those are just formalities. Can the Senate turn down the law? I know for a fact the Governor General can't.

---

Actually they both can. But neither will (especially on something like this) as if they cause waves they could lose their position. The senate is usually a rubber stamp cause if they have to much attention the mob might start to ask why we have a senate that is basically an appointment for life. Their role is review a bill that has gone through the house of commons and if it needs revisions will make them and send it back to the commons for a new vote. If the Governor General doesn't give the royal assent to a bill it never becomes law.

Legalising this just gave morality a black eye.


Who could support this. They had the same rights before no one was stopping them from marrying straight. Its not our fault they dont like it. :furious3:

I hope america can keep its morals in the years to come. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Legalising this just gave morality a black eye.


Who could support this. They had the same rights before no one was stopping them from marrying straight. Its not our fault they dont like it. :furious3:

I hope america can keep its morals in the years to come. ~:cheers:

---

I support it, as do most people I know. I would also support legalising beastiality and polygamy, but not incest. That actually causes much much more harm than being a homo, or a dog porker, or a polygamist ever could.

ok then if the majority of your country supports it go ahead but most americans do not.


The issue was put up for vote in my state and only one county had a majority for it ~:cheers: and the rest voted it down in a land side.


a great victory ~:)

Several points need to be made in regards to this issue.

Was the process that brought state sanctioned same sex marriage done through the legislative process of Canada - or was it forced onto the state by an outside body.

From what I have read the new law followed the process that was set up by the Canadian people when their government was formed.

Society has the ablity to determine what course it wishes to follow by electing its representives in a democratic society. The Canadian people elected the people who voted this into law - not by a simple majority but from the article it seems to be an overwelming majority. If the people of Canada are not happy with this new law - they will cast their votes during the next election to show their disapproval.

The process has been followed - its not the rule of court that brought about the change - but the will of the people as expressed by their elected officials. The law seems to be written in such a way that concepts of beast love, incest and polygmy are not to be include. However I haven't seen the full text of the law to see exactly how it is written.

So while I disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage - its now a priveledge for the citizens of Canada to do with as they desire. Time will tell if its a harmful change in society values - or not. When the law is challenged by those who wish to partake in other sexual activity then we can discuss it - and only when the courts of Canada approve such a lose interpation of the law.

By the way has anyone seen the text of the new law - before they made such allegation of the door is now open to polygomy and beastility

poligamy and bestiality ? :dizzy2: next caller please !

For my part, i think i am as many canadian, i dont really care. The only thing that would tickle is if they allow adoption by gay couple. Now that would be another thing. But 2 consentant adult ? Why not !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The process has been followed - its not the rule of court that brought about the change - but the will of the people as expressed by their elected officials.
[...]
So while I disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage - its now a priveledge for the citizens of Canada to do with as they desire. Time will tell if its a harmful change in society values - or not.

---

The position of a true believer in democracy :bow: