Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

The Australian position on this is lamentable, IMO. We have de facto marriage defined in legislation, which amounts to common law marriage as described by Aldeth (although, being legislation, it's not common law, but that's beside the point). Anyone can qualify for such recognition if they have been living in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years; the rights afforded to de facto couples deal mainly with property.

Can anyone spot the problem in that definition? It is a sticking point for lots of people... particularly an increasingly conservative Christian-influenced legislature.

We also have civil and religious marriage ceremonies. They are quite distinct and separate (and friends of mine have been through both in the last year). If you want a religious service, have one. If you want a civil service, do that instead. Essentially, the difference is what you want your union to be: a covenant in the presence of a priest or equivalent, or a legal agreement and status recognised by the state. At the moment, only heterosexual couples can get either of these.

I have no issue with extending civil unions to gay couples; it confers legal status to their relationship, with all the benefits and requirements that entails. Of course, as has been said, the state has no business telling churches what they should or should not do; if a church refuses to marry gay couples, well, that's up to them to decide. That should not disqualify gay couples from legal rights and obligations that are only unavailable because of their sexual preferences.

@ Gnarfflinger:
If this is all about freedom, as you seem to be arguing, then your argument is almost self-defeating. Nothing in this debate prevents you from practicing your beliefs; you may find it offensive, but it hardly supplants your ability to hold those beliefs and live according to them.

No-one should have the right to slander and vilify another person as that jailed priest did (although I believe justice was done in that he did not deserve jail time). That priest committed an offence, yes; so does everyone who slags off the Christian church, homosexuals, Moslems, people of other ethnicities, et cetera by making such inflammatory and vicious claims which are based in hatred rather than evidence. If gay people were more likely to rape children and animals, and could be proven to be a cancer on the world, and they were undoubtedly going to bring about a natural disaster for Sweden, then he would have been persecuted. Somehow, I don't think anyone has that kind of proof.

To summarise: the philosophy of "do unto others" seems to hold up well. If you're concerned about the decline in religious belief in most Western societies, perhaps you should examine how and why that has occurred before scapegoating gay marriage, lamenting the rape of virtue and the rise of secular hedonism.

 

But if Prayer can be reomoved from school because it offends the non Christians, then Evolution should be removesd because it offends the Christians. Refusal to do that means that the State is supporting the undermining of the church.

Yes, Sin is sin, but you're giving another group of sinners the same rights as another group of sinners, but you are not legitimizing either sin.

I don't trust our courts after some of the bull**** they've pulled on us in the last few years...

Most wouldn't, but sooner or later, some ******* will try to prove a point and attack a perceived enemy of the Gay Community...

The point I have made all along is that I doubt that the majority supports the decision made. The Majority may actually oppose this law. I feel that the Government neglected the desires of the country as a whole to satisfy one particular group...

 

I'm quite indifferent about prayers in school. At lower grades we used to have priests as guests from time to time and then we participated in prayer. However it is everyone's right to not participate in this prayer. They can wait outside or listen without actually participating. Forcing someone to participate against their will is of course very very wrong.

Remember, don't trust anyone. The truth is out there.

But seriously. Ain't it funny that allways when a regime or the courts decide something what you disagree with they must be corrupt and traitors of the people? Go figure.

 

You are compairing apples and peaches. Prayers are not the same as teaching sciences.

Prayers do not belong into a state school at all. They belong to church.

Certainly there can be something like religious education at school. Teaching about the tenets of faith. But this has nothing to do with science classes.

 

Not to nitpick, but technically a religious ceremony does both of those things. Yes, it is covenant in the presence of a religious figure, but 99% of such ceremonies are also recognized by the state, and therefore confer the same legal status as a civil ceremony.

I fail to see why teaching evolution in schools stops you from practicing your religion, or forces you to practice a religion that is not yours. You aren't even required to send your children to public schools, so why is it offensive? That is the main difference as I see it. Just like you wouldn't want your children to memorize passages from the Quoran, similarly Muslims don't want their children learning a Christian view of creation. My point focuses on teaching different religious principles which you can't make people do because of freedom of religion. Your point focuses on the content of a biology course, which has nothing to do with religion.

If you are that opposed to what the public school systems teach, you have every right to send your children to a religious-based, private school that teaches what you want them to learn. I can't say I have any idea what type of schools are available to you locally, but most areas of the country (and I'm sure the same goes for Canada) have an abundance of Christian-based schools all over the place. Some are Catholic, some are Protestant, and yes, even some are Mormon. In my county, we even have a Jewish school.

Now I know the argument you are going to put forth already, so allow me to reply to it: You're going to say that you pay taxes to support your local public schools, and therefore you should be able to use these services, and not have to pay extra to send your children to private schools. Well, it just doesn't work that way. In the U.S. and Canada, you pay taxes for tons of different services whether or not you are ever going to make use of any or all of those services. Let me explain by example (for U.S. based programs, substitute the appropriate Canadian equivalent):

I pay a portion of every pay check I receive to Social Security and Medicare. I don't know if will live long enough to make use of Social Security or Medicare, but I still have to pay regardless. If I die before age 67, I paid for a service I will never use.

Some of my tax money goes to support disability, welfare, and unemployment payments. Even if I go through my entire career and never become disabled or unexpectedly unemployed, I don't get my money back. I pay for that service whether or not I use it.

Finally, some of my tax money is used to fund public schools. Regardless of what cirriculum is taught, I still have to pay school taxes. This is true regardless of whether or not I attended public school when I was growing up, or whether or not I have any children that would use the public school system in the future. To further this point, I still have to pay even if I decide to send my children to a private school, or home educate them.

So if you don't like what the public school system teaches, simply don't send your child there. Either home educate or (if you feel you lack the ability to properly instruct your child) send them to private school. Sure, it's going to cost extra money to do so, but you're already paying for tons of services that you aren't using - and it's not like you are exempt from paying for such services just because you aren't using them.

What you can't do is expect the public school system to conform to your religious preferences. Gnarff, read that last sentence again to make sure you understand it. If you now understand that sentence, it should be crystal clear to you why it's OK to teach evolution, and not OK to have prayer in public schools.

Now lets make a big leap here - and tie this into the original topic. Just like you can't expect a public school to conform to your religious principles, you can't expect a civil, public ceremony - in this case gays marrying - to conform to your religious principles either.

 

I think it is wrong precisely for the reason you define -- that I have to pay taxes for it. I think that you are confusing state and local taxes -- which are where the money for public schools generally come from -- with federal taxes -- which are those that pay Medicare and the other things you cited.

More to the point is that I do not think people want the public schools to undermine what they themselves are trying to teach the children. So if they are teaching their kids the theory of intelligent design, they do not want the schools to teach their kids that we evolved from animals with no help from God -- which is something Darwin did not teach either, but that is another topic.

My feelings on the matter of religion in schools is that students and teachers should be able to practice it freely and that official school functions should do whatever a majority of people in the community want them to with religion -- either steer clear of religion completely or adopt a few practices (like holidays) of the majority religion or whatever -- so long as kids are allowed to opt out.

I do not like the fact that many small towns that have their way of life set are forced by bureaucrats to stop praying in graduation ceremonies and other functions. The majority should rule in such cases.

 

While I concur that school taxes are local taxes, and things like Medicare and Social Security are federal taxes, I fail to see why this is a major sticking point. In both cases they require you to pay into a public fund for a service that you may or may not want to (or be able) to use. That having been said, while a large chunk of what school districts have to spend come from local taxes, all school districts that I know of also receive money from the state and federal governments as well.

Of course, where the taxation comes from is besides the point I am trying to make - and it probably isn't the main point of your argument either. All I'm saying is that freedom of religion not only affects having the right to practice any religion you see fit, but also being able to avoid the influences of other religions you do not wish to participate in. For clarity let me state again that evolution, while it does contradict some points taught in scripture is not, in and of itself, a religious principle. If you don't like the school cirriculum, there are alternatives available to you for the instruction of your children.

 

I don't know how it is in other Canadian municipalities, but every year my parents got a form that basically asked them to decide where they wanted their taxes for schools to go. Example: English public school, french public school, english catholic or french catholic. So in my case since I went to french public schools, a portion of their taxes went there and another portion went to english public schools because of my sister.

I've never been to catholic schools so I can't say if they charge anything else, but my parents could have supported them if the chose to.

 

@Istolil - how interesting. We don't have that here in the states. I pay a percentage of my taxes to the county - Baltimore County specifically. I have no say in to how they spend those taxes. Sure, a good chunk of that goes to public schools, but also a portion of that pays the Baltimore County police department, and the snow crews that keep the roads clear in the winter. I certainly don't have any say as to what TYPE of school the money dedicated to the school district goes. Then again, we don't have French speaking schools here either. We don't subsidize religious-based schools either, other than by providing them the school buses for transportation.

 

The way I figure it worked is that they figured the percentage of taxes that went to schools on the federal/provincial/municipal level. Then my parents got to decide how and where that percentage went. Makes sense to me. Why fund private catholic schools when our kids attend public school?

 

I realised that, however there is no such thing in Britain as a common law marriage. Such a concept ceased in 1753.

http://www.advicenow.org.uk/go/livingtogether/index

 

@Carcaroth - ACK! Are we that socially backward in many U.S. States? You're telling me that the existence of common law marriage ended in Britain before the U.S. came into existence? Regardless, this doesn't help either. Firstly, the idea of common law marriage does not exist in Canada per se, although there is "common law status". From wikipedia:

This brings up another very interesting point. Currently if a married couple from Canada moves to the U.S. and become citizens of the U.S., they are considered married under U.S. law. What about gay couples? Another interesting question regarding common law marriage would be if a couple is "common law married" in a given state, and then moves to a state in which there is no common law marriage, are they still considered married?

 

In a case like that IMHO they have to acknowledge the marriage but I don't think they would be eligeable to the married couple benefits in the U.S. since the U.S. the marriage is not "legal" under US law.

 

Then that's a whole different can of worms...

Amd extending that to Homosexuals would satisfy the court's ruling without pissing off the religious majority. If Religion teaches that any sex outside of marriage (fornication, adultery or homosexuality) is a greivous sin, then why should one group of sinners get certain rights that other groups don't? This allows religion to have their definition of marriage and the Gay community to have what rights they are going to get, but make sure that they know that's it.

 

I think as long as churches are allowed to refuse to marry any couple they want for any reason they want, including dumb ones (e.g. he's wearing brown shoes!), everything should be okay. Civil unions would provide the legal rights, and if same-sex couples really want to get married, they can search the state, the country, or even the world for some place that will marry them. It could even spawn a sort of 'Gay Guide to Same Sex Marriage Venues' book.

Note: The brown shoes thing was not meant to suggest that it's as stupid to deny someone based on their sexuality as it is to deny someone based on the color of their shoes. (Though IMO, it does come close. ) It was only meant to underscore how stupid a reason that they should be able to get away with.

Marriage is a blessing bestowed upon a couple by a willing religious authority. It is a gift, and should be treated as such. If it is coerced in any way (legally, for example), it should be considered null and void, or perhaps even a sort of anti-marriage.

However, if they can find a religious authority who will marry them freely and without reservation, they deserve to get married. I say this because of how much they would have to love each other to do that much work for such a relatively meaningless payoff.

 

Well I didn't like to say but...

I understand that marriages in foreign countries are not automatically valid in the UK. For instance Polygamy and close family marriages are certainly not valid under British law and therefore aren't recognised (I assume this will apply to Gay marriage as well). I know of a couple of cases of Brits getting married abroad only to find out it's not legal under British law - mainly as the UK authorities do not recognise that countries system.

 

Just to add my $0,02, the gay marriage bill in Canada deals specifically with CIVIL MARRIAGE. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

During the House of Commons debates on the bill, some MPs (mostly Conservatives) have tried to make it about religious rights, but their arguments were as off-topic as the discussions in this thread.

The intent of the bill (which is entitled "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes") is to allow more people to enter into civil marriage, people who did not have that right before. That's it. Nothing about priests being forced to perform gay marriages, nothing about churches being sued, nothing about religious rights being jeopardized.

This is all about extending a right to people who didn't have it before, and not about forcing anyone to do anything. This bill only affects civil marriage, and since "civil" means "recognized by the State", and since there is separation of Church and State in Canada, religion has no place in this debate, just like the State has no right to tell any religion what to teach or not to teach.

Also, even before this bill came into existence, about 90% of homosexual Canadians already had the right to get married civilly because of provincial laws. Is the harmonization of the law across the country really worth all this uproar?

 

If I could be so naive as to believe that the Gay community would simply rejoice with this ruling, I could live with it, but I do not believe that they will stop there. Some activists will use this to make major points against religion, thus making this more contentious than it already is. Fortunately, the Senate still has to pass it (they can refuse) and the Governor General still has to endorse it after that, so it's not law yet, and could be held up for a long, long time...

 

Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Senate just passed the bill tonight, by a vote of 47-21. It will receive Royal Assent tomorrow. And the Governor General would never defeat a bill -- if she values her insanely well-paid job, that is. So, in effect, it's a done deal.

That said, I fail to see why or how gay activists would use something that has absolutely nothing to do with religion to try to score against any religious group. As I said in my previous post, 90% of gay Canadians already had the right to be married, some for as long as 2 years. Has there been massive gay riots against religion since then? Not that I'm aware of. I really don't think religious groups have anything to be worried about. Churches will still be allowed to marry whoever they want, and to exclude whoever they want. It's their right. No one wants to take that away.