canada allows gay marriage

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-17 08:47pm

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003 ... 91-cp.html

I dunno. is it even worth posting rr opinion this time? I think we can guess.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-06-17 09:36pm

Good for Canada. The US needs to allow civil unions for homosexuals, IMHO.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-17 09:40pm

I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-06-17 09:42pm

This is old news, we've already had church groups doing protests, and in response, a lawyer told them to "Stop reading the bible and start reading the Human Rights code"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-17 09:47pm

Alex Moon wrote:Good for Canada. The US needs to allow civil unions for homosexuals, IMHO.

There is no national policy either way, at least as far as I'm aware.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-06-17 09:51pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:Good for Canada. The US needs to allow civil unions for homosexuals, IMHO.
There is no national policy either way, at least as far as I'm aware.

Correct. I'd be more than happy if all of the states would allow the unions, even if there was no uniform national policy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-17 10:05pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something

It's not in the constitution and we don't need to shift more power to the Federal level.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 10:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something
It's not in the constitution and we don't need to shift more power to the Federal level.

It is in the constitution, since establishment of religion is prohibited, and no one can produce a workable basis for anti-sodomy laws without relying on religion. Hell, even the word "sodomy" has a religious basis.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-18 12:57am

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something
It's not in the constitution and we don't need to shift more power to the Federal level.
It is in the constitution, since establishment of religion is prohibited, and no one can produce a workable basis for anti-sodomy laws without relying on religion. Hell, even the word "sodomy" has a religious basis.

Sure they can. They've managed to convince quite a few people that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-18 01:42am

Good for Canada. The US might as well do it as well, since marriage has to do with tax and legal status for the two people under the law, you might as well give gay couples the same legal and tax status.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-18 09:13am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something
It's not in the constitution and we don't need to shift more power to the Federal level.

The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is part of the right to pursuit of happiness, so by disallowing homosexual civil unions, those states are infringing on gays' right to pursue happiness.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-18 09:20am

Durran Korr wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It is in the constitution, since establishment of religion is prohibited, and no one can produce a workable basis for anti-sodomy laws without relying on religion. Hell, even the word "sodomy" has a religious basis.
Sure they can. They've managed to convince quite a few people that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature.

Sorry, I forgot about the Idiot Factor

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-18 09:49am

Durandal wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I think an Amendment needs to be passed abolishing sodomy laws and such, or a supreme court case, or something
It's not in the constitution and we don't need to shift more power to the Federal level.
The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is part of the right to pursuit of happiness, so by disallowing homosexual civil unions, those states are infringing on gays' right to pursue happiness.

That is the fucking dumbest argument I've ever heard from the Court. Are you sure this case isn't a hoax?

The pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration, which is not really a document our government uses to structure itself.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-18 09:54am

Durran Korr wrote:The pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration, which is not really a document our government uses to structure itself.

Bad joke time.

Maybe its a typo and they meant "The pursuit of a penis"

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-06-21 11:25pm

*Presses button on stopwatch*

Just waiting for the fundies to go out of whack over the news. Perhaps they might not, since this is Canada we're talking about. Maybe they'll wait until gay marriage is legalized in America, and then whine about how we're going to hell.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-06-21 11:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:It is in the constitution, since establishment of religion is prohibited, and no one can produce a workable basis for anti-sodomy laws without relying on religion. Hell, even the word "sodomy" has a religious basis.

They've managed to for now. While it's entirely possible that such laws will be struck down eventually, an amendment would make it clear cut.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-21 11:45pm

Bad news folks. In the United States, under the Defense of Marriage Act, states are exempted from Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the "full faith and credit" clause) which requires states to recognize the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states in the case of homosexual marriages, and further goes on to define "marriage" as the civil union of a man and a woman exclusively under the United States Code. Basically, it means that individual states can legalize gay marriage (like Hawaii and Vermont have), but the other states in the union are not obligated to recognize such marriages should that couple move to that state. In most other issues, states are required to recognize out-of-state marriages even if the couple was married in a state with different marriae laws (which is why a Las Vegas drive-through wedding is a legally recognized marriage in the other 49 states, and why in the days before no-fault divorce, a Nevada divorce was also recognized in the other states).

It's not quite outlawing gay marriage, but it leaves bigots and fundies with a much easier task of making life difficult for homosexual couples.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-06-23 12:57am

RedImperator wrote:Bad news folks. In the United States, under the Defense of Marriage Act, states are exempted from Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution (the "full faith and credit" clause) which requires states to recognize the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states in the case of homosexual marriages, and further goes on to define "marriage" as the civil union of a man and a woman exclusively under the United States Code. Basically, it means that individual states can legalize gay marriage (like Hawaii and Vermont have), but the other states in the union are not obligated to recognize such marriages should that couple move to that state. In most other issues, states are required to recognize out-of-state marriages even if the couple was married in a state with different marriae laws (which is why a Las Vegas drive-through wedding is a legally recognized marriage in the other 49 states, and why in the days before no-fault divorce, a Nevada divorce was also recognized in the other states).

It's not quite outlawing gay marriage, but it leaves bigots and fundies with a much easier task of making life difficult for homosexual couples.

The above statement is true, and I think, were there a challenge, the Defense of Marriage Act would be struck down (and all similar laws in the states) due to the fact that it disenfranchises a taxpaying segment of society.

I have often advocated the hostaging of income tax funds by homosexuals and their supporters, as long as we do not have the civil rights enjoyed by everyone else. Of course, all would have to be held in escrow until the situation was resolved.

acesand8s · Post by **acesand8s** » 2003-06-23 05:47pm

I saw this on Rapture Ready. Is it true?

Latest development. . .
Canadian Parliament to Legalize Gay Marriage
Canadian marriages are currently recognized in the U.S.
June 21, 2003

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien has said that he will introduce a bill to legalize homosexual marriage in all of Canada.

Chretien's actions come only days after an Ontario court legalized homosexual marriage in that province. Once it passes, it will become law in the United States because the U.S. recognizes Canadian marriages.

Thus, a homosexual couple in the U.S. can go to Canada, get married (there is no residency requirement) and return to the U.S. as a legally married couple.

Naturally, it then goes on to ask people to sign a petition to change the law. [Mutter]Stupid idiots[/Mutter].

Here's the link if you want it.

http://www. rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=d0b06ee6febece177e09bbcb8a89a91d&threadid=93315

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-06-23 05:50pm

On a mildly related note, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I forget his name - has recently stated that the appointment of a gay bishop has his support and will not be revoked, he said words to the effect that it has no effect on his position and that the intolerance of homosexuality within the church only damages it's credibility. I wonder if the Biblical literalist chaps are going to condemn an entire nation as a place of sin because of it?