Good job Canada.

[Fade]

Legal Gay Marriages (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2907451). Please, US, take note!

[c0rbin]

It's sad that one of the reasons homosexual couples in the US seek the legal ratification of their unions is to have some legal recourse in cases of abuse and seperation.

I agree. Well done Canada.

Now I wonder if the United States can put the Bible down for a second and move on.

[svero]

Now gays can be subjected to the same ridiculous broken family law that hetrosexual couples are burdened with. It brings to mind the saying "be careful what you wish for you might just get it" - I guess there's suppose to be some advantages too... oh well...

[Thanz]

Excellent ruling.

A summary of the case can be found here (http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernsynopsis.htm)

The entire text of the judgment is here (http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/june/halpernC39172.htm)

[jimlintott]

:)

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

unfortunately provinces like Alberta will use the not withstanding clause.


2 men took adavantage of the law which took effect today, after 3 years of trying, Tues, June 10th.

[Segnosaur]

It should be noted that the Federal government has not yet decided on whether they will appeal the ruling.

So far, this issue has divided people into 3 camps:

- Those totally opposed to gay marriages who condem the ruling

- Those totally for gay marriages who support the ruling

- A small number of people (who may or may not believe in gay marriages), yet who are concerned that the courts are "creating" new law through rewording laws or overly-broad interpretations of existing laws.

I fall into the 3rd camp; I am pretty apethetic to the whole gay marriage thing (yes, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality); however, should important public policy decisions be made by unelected judges instead of by parliment?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
unfortunately provinces like Alberta will use the not withstanding clause.
Ralph Klein is an idiot. He will not be able to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Marriage is a federal area of power - not provincial. He simply does not have a say about who can or cannot get married.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
It should be noted that the Federal government has not yet decided on whether they will appeal the ruling.

So far, this issue has divided people into 3 camps:

- Those totally opposed to gay marriages who condem the ruling

- Those totally for gay marriages who support the ruling

- A small number of people (who may or may not believe in gay marriages), yet who are concerned that the courts are "creating" new law through rewording laws or overly-broad interpretations of existing laws.

I fall into the 3rd camp; I am pretty apethetic to the whole gay marriage thing (yes, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality); however, should important public policy decisions be made by unelected judges instead of by parliment?

Well, the courts create new law all the time. That is how a common law system works. There was a time when you would not be able to sue the manufacturer of a product that was defective unless you bought it directly from the manufacturer, as there was no "privity of contract". Now, of course, such cases are commonplace, due to the evolving of the common law.

However, to address what I think is your real point - that elected officials should be deciding these tough issues rather than the courts - the problem is that the elected officials simply don't. They stay away from the hot button issues like the plague. I don't think that yesterday's ruling was a surprise to anyone. The government knows that prohibitions on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. But, because of the other two groups you mention, they refrain from actually taking a real stand. The same thing happened when the abortion law was struck down due to the fact that the defences were not equally available to all.

The problem is not that courts have seized some sort of power. The problem is that the government has abdicated its responsibility.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
unfortunately provinces like Alberta will use the not withstanding clause.

There are no provinces like Alberta. It's no surprise Klein will put up a fight.

[Bunk]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I fall into the 3rd camp; I am pretty apethetic to the whole gay marriage thing (yes, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality); however, should important public policy decisions be made by unelected judges instead of by parliment?

I agree that judges should be careful about making themselves legislators, however, in this case are they not just making sure an existing law (marriage) is applied equally to all who wish to use it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Bunk


I agree that judges should be careful about making themselves legislators, however, in this case are they not just making sure an existing law (marriage) is applied equally to all who wish to use it?

Not really... From the linked article:

The court redefined the common law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

In so doing, it substituted "two persons" for "one man and one woman."

Its the substitution that counts as "making new law".

Now, I don't know enough about the legality here... I know that much of common law relies on precidents set by previous cases; however, there are at least some statutes written down; I'm assuming the "one man and one woman" had been codified in law. (I could be wrong about that.)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Not really... From the linked article:

The court redefined the common law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

In so doing, it substituted "two persons" for "one man and one woman."

Its the substitution that counts as "making new law".

Now, I don't know enough about the legality here... I know that much of common law relies on precidents set by previous cases; however, there are at least some statutes written down; I'm assuming the "one man and one woman" had been codified in law. (I could be wrong about that.)
You would be wrong about that, at least in the federal sense. If there were an official federal definition of marriage you can bet your botoom dollar that it would have been part of the charter challenge.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Thanz




The problem is not that courts have seized some sort of power. The problem is that the government has abdicated its responsibility.

an important distinction, thankyou

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

You would be wrong about that, at least in the federal sense. If there were an official federal definition of marriage you can bet your botoom dollar that it would have been part of the charter challenge.

In that case, where IS the defnition of 'marriage' codified? It has to be written somewhere (whether it is federal or provincial).

[reprise]

Yay Canada!

One of the truly heart-wrenching consequences of gay unions not being fully recognised in this country occured a couple of years ago when our government decided to grant compensation to those who had been prisoners of war under the Japanese during WWII.

Widows of those who had died since the war were entitled to the compensation (irrespective of the duration of the marriage), life-long gay partners were not.

[Frostbite]

Umm.. who gives a crap anyway? Is it my business that a couple is gay or that religion bends the rules again and that my government approves? I personally couldn't care less.

[c0rbin]

Frostbite.

If you think this is a non-issue, I think you are wrong. Enightened states should seek life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for their up-standing citizens without exception.

If you are being 14, there are plenty of other threads that you might care about that you could post on. If it were required that we all post something on every thread--even the one's whose subject we "couldn't care less" about, this forum would overload with posts like yours above.

[reprise]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Frostbite.

If you think this is a non-issue, I think you are wrong. Enightened states should seek life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for their up-standing citizens without exception.

If you are being 14, there are plenty of other threads that you might care about that you could post on. If it were required that we all post something on every thread--even the one's whose subject we "couldn't care less" about, this forum would overload with posts like yours above.

Even those opposed to the decision still have a vested interest, as ultimately the extension of spousal entitlements to gay partners will be reflected in taxation rates, insurance premiums, and many other economic situations in which most people participate.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Frostbite.

If you think this is a non-issue, I think you are wrong. Enightened states should seek life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for their up-standing citizens without exception.



Sorry, this is Canada.... We don't believe in the right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Great, now there can be two unhappy men in a marriage, instead of just one.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Sorry, this is Canada.... We don't believe in the right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Some of us do. Sorry you don't.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Great, now there can be two unhappy men in a marriage, instead of just one.

Good one.

All this issue does is remind me that there's some economic benefit to being married or it wouldn't be an issue. Since I won't get married, I won't get that benefit, so I really don't have an opinion about it. I say anyone against gay marriages should fight to remove all benefits of being married for everyone, and then the issue will go away. Free love, baby! :)

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Enightened states should seek life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for their up-standing citizens without exception.

Well, isn't that the whole point of allowing this marriage? I don't understand what you're saying.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Some of us do. Sorry you don't.

I think he was refering to the constitutional makeup of Canada. Sorry you didn't catch the irony.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


In that case, where IS the defnition of 'marriage' codified? It has to be written somewhere (whether it is federal or provincial).
Marriage isn't really codified (legislatively) anywhere. There are some statutes that define "spouse", but they usually refer to either being married or to some length of cohabitation. There is a federal statute that prohibits marriage between siblings, etc., but that is about it.

The definition of marriage comes from the common law. Paragraph 1 of the judgment says:The definition of marriage in Canada, for all of the nation’s 136 years, has been based on the classic formulation of Lord Penzance in Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), L.R. 1 P.&D. 130 at 133: “I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” The central question in this appeal is whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from this common law definition of marriage breaches ss. 2(a) or 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”) in a manner that is not justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter.

There is a statute that refers to this definition, but it is not a codification of it.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


I think he was refering to the constitutional makeup of Canada. Sorry you didn't catch the irony.

Could be. I've been missing a lot of irony and sarcasm on this board lately.
I must be getting old and losing my scathing sense of humour.

[aggle_rithm]

I think this is great. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Gays and lesbians can take their licks just like everyone else.

;)

(PS, no sexually suggestive pun intended.)

[Fade]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


(PS, no sexually suggestive pun intended.) [/B]

WINK WINK NUDGE

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin


There are no provinces like Alberta.

If it weren't so friggin cold in the winter, I'd be living there.

[Gregor]

Let me speak for those opposed to the decision solely upon economic grounds. It's one more thing that will increase consumer costs and tax burdens if it comes to America.