Gay Marriage Bill Passes in Canada!

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

So why isn't this bigger international news? One would think that such a massive step towards equality would be met with banner headlines, not the news equivalant (in the US anyway) of sticking fingers in ears and saying "we can't hear you".

 

[Alabaster.j.cat]

I would think that it would be more widely known as well. It is a big step, it only leads me to think how many / if any gay couples will be heading north (From the US) in the future.

 

[Fig]

Probably not widely known because most Canadian provicnes were already allowign it thanks to their supreme courts overturning the marriage law provision beforehand.

All THIS change is a few provinces won't have to bother with the supreme court step, and it's actually written in law rather than in Supreme Court judgements.

 

[Mozz]

Probably not widely known because most Canadian provicnes were already allowign it thanks to their supreme courts overturning the marriage law provision beforehand.

All THIS change is a few provinces won't have to bother with the supreme court step, and it's actually written in law rather than in Supreme Court judgements.

You mean there are places where laws are drafted and approved by an elected legislature, not forced by appointed judges? Where is this mystical land?

 

[Blaze]

pfft I hope this law never comes into being in america, so long for people thinking Canada is a part of the USA. I am now referring to it as its pro gay country

 

[Fig]

You mean there are places where laws are drafted and approved by an elected legislature, not forced by appointed judges? Where is this mystical land?

Reminding Mozzy-boy that it IS the supreme court's duty to overturn laws they judge contrary to the constitution/charter of rights/whatever "founding" documents your nation has.

And the provinces are Alberta (aka, North Texas; Oil, Cowboys, and Fundies*), Newfoundland (AKA Newfieville, the butt of most canadian jokes), and forgot which others. Probably the territories (AKA, "The Other Alaska", "Alaska JR." and "North Alaska")

Hydrio : thanks, we like to be PRO-minorities :-D. Anti's such an ugly word, for such an ugly attitude, don't you think?

 

[birdboy2000]

In fairness, the parts of Canada that didn't have gay marriage beforehand are pretty low in population.

That said, it's about time Canada catches up with Massachusetts. ^_^

 

[Mozz]

Reminding Mozzy-boy that it IS the supreme court's duty to overturn laws they judge contrary to the constitution/charter of rights/whatever "founding" documents your nation has.

Reminding Damian that the actual rulings made by the courts is a hugeeeee stretch. Or is that huuuuuuuge.

 

[Fig]

Not really in Canada, no.

The Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" states PLAINLY :

" 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Judging that "no gay marriage" discriminates against gays doesn't seem THAT much of a stretch. Oh, you COULD conceivably make the case that homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite gender, therefore no discrimination, but there's no particular reason that make THAT interpretation more valid than the other (gay individual cannot marry their human partner in a couple. Heteros can. Therefore, discrimination).

 

[Transfinite]

And the provinces are Alberta (aka, North Texas; Oil, Cowboys, and Fundies*), Newfoundland (AKA Newfieville, the butt of most canadian jokes), and forgot which others. Probably the territories (AKA, "The Other Alaska", "Alaska JR." and "North Alaska")

Didn't Manitscoldout legalise it also?

 

[Fig]

No, no. Those four are the states/provinces that did NOT have it legal already (and I got one wrong; it was Prince Edward Island, not Newfoundland. IE, the most insignificant province in Canada)

British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Yukon all had it legal already.

 

[birdboy2000]

And Prince Edward Island. Which is smaller and has less population than Vancouver Island and happens to be a small province in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

I am now referring to it as its pro gay country

You say that as though there's something wrong with it.

 

[birdboy2000]

Massachusetts still legalized it first.

 

[Fig]

An Article from the Moderator of the United Church of Canada.

By PETER SHORT

As Bill C-38 passes through the House of Commons, it makes the passage from "moral issue" to law of the land. This is a surprising thing -- not because we didn't expect the legislation to pass -- but because, with its passage, the heart is surprised to find itself living in a new world.

As we learn to live with the heart's surprise, it will be good to think about our new civic morals. Actually, it will be good to distinguish between morals and conventions because marriage is a mystifying fabric of both these things. When we make that distinction thoughtfully, I suspect we will discover that our morals are not new at all, but our conventions have changed dramatically. Northrop Frye was right to say that the conventions amongst which you live may change, and often, but your morals will do you a lifetime.

In the biblical tradition, there may be no more deeply "moral" issue than the Sabbath. The seventh day, day of delight, doorway into the freedom and the rest of God -- Sabbath is woven more deeply and more intimately into the fabric of the tradition than marriage is. The keeping of the Sabbath is a commandment that requires rather than prohibits. Marriage is not required. I suspect that marriage presents itself to us as a moral issue because it is bound up with sexuality, and sex is bound to get our attention. Whether it merits so much of our attention is another question. In the Gospel According to Mark, Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath."

If Jesus could say this of the deeply moral Sabbath, how much more might it be said of marriage? "Marriage was made for humankind, and not humankind for marriage." Said that way, the truly moral dimension of the question emerges into the light.

The question is not, "Which sexual orientations have the right to marriage?" The question is, "Who is a human being?" Who is the real, full, true human being for whom marriage is made?

Homosexuality has been variously named a disease, a crime, a sin, an aberration, a distortion, an anomaly -- and those are the polite words. Like any phenomenon appearing in a minority of the population (left-handedness comes to mind), homosexuality has been subject to a perceived need for correction. The Bible is not innocent of this anxiety and its bitter campaigns. In the Christian tradition to which I belong, the words of the Bible are judged by the Living Word whose life is given not for correction but for redemption; not for some but for all; not as a master but as a servant.

The moral issue here is not sex but love. Love is judged not by its object but by its own inner qualities; that is, love's faithfulness, kindness, patience, goodness, sacrifice, compassion, courtesy and perseverance. The moral issue is our will to love one another. Beneath that moral issue lies the foundational demand to recognize the humanity of one another. The great enemy of truly moral love is not sex but fear.

As Canadians move into the surprising new world this legislation has opened to us, we may begin to see that our civic morality has not been cast aside; rather, it is deepening and maturing.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Massachusetts still legalized it first.

Yeah, except the Dutch beat you bastards out, and added insult to injury by legalizing pot and prostitutes. You invent a time machine and legalize pot and hookers before the Netherlands, then we'll talk.

 

[birdboy2000]

Yes. But we're still first in the english-speaking world, the western hemisphere, and a few other categories. And if you want to get really technical, we legalized it in 1780, it just wasn't enforced until may of 2004 because no one challenged the constitutionality of the hetero-only marriage law.

And besides, we were much better colonial masters than either the dutch or belgians. Even Nova Scotia's better off than any of their old colonies.

 

[Fig]

Not that you never tried silly stuff like mass-deporting settlers of a rival nation in newly conquered territory (RE : ACADIA)...

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Not that you never tried silly stuff like mass-deporting settlers of a rival nation in newly conquered territory (RE : ACADIA)...

Gave us an interesting French Catholic influence in New Orleans.

 

[Fig]

Yeah, that was more or less the cool part of it all.

However if they did it again today it'd STILL count as a war crime or close .