Gay Marriage

[NeoRicen]

I've been thinking quite a bit about the issue lately. I used to be against it (even though I'm a Liberal Atheist) just on the grounds that it didn't seem right. But I recently changed my mind (I seem to generally be drifting further to the left) because I now think it's a complete non-issue. I mean who cares if gay people get married, it doesn't affect me in ANY way and the gays are happy, no-one loses.

Some people say it devalues their marriage if gay couples can do it. I don't buy this for a second, there's a whole lot worse going on in the world of straight marriage that would, from this point of view, devalue marriage. It's not going to make you love your spouse any less (if it does you're an idiot), it's not going to take away your marriage rights.

I'm just curious to hear from people opposed to it and their reasons why (apart from religious I suppose, seeing as that's obvious).

To me it appears to be conservatives making an issue out of nothing so they can campaign on it for elections.

[Matteo Martini]

I've been thinking quite a bit about the issue lately. I used to be against it (even though I'm a Liberal Atheist) just on the grounds that it didn't seem right. But I recently changed my mind (I seem to generally be drifting further to the left) because I now think it's a complete non-issue. I mean who cares if gay people get married, it doesn't affect me in ANY way and the gays are happy, no-one loses.

Some people say it devalues their marriage if gay couples can do it. I don't buy this for a second, there's a whole lot worse going on in the world of straight marriage that would, from this point of view, devalue marriage. It's not going to make you love your spouse any less (if it does you're an idiot), it's not going to take away your marriage rights.

I'm just curious to hear from people opposed to it and their reasons why (apart from religious I suppose, seeing as that's obvious).

To me it appears to be conservatives making an issue out of nothing so they can campaign on it for elections.

I also see no problem with gay marriage.
In Italy, AFAIK, they are scared that gay marriage could lead, one day, to have gay couples adopting children, like in Spain.
So, the majority is against.
As it is in Japan, it seems..

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In Italy, AFAIK, they are scared that gay marriage could lead, one day, to have gay couples adopting children, like in Spain.

An argument I just don't understand. Does anyone really believe that children are better off in care than with a couple who have been screened to ensure they are suitable adoptive parents?

[Hapexamendios]

I also have no problem with it. If it gives a gay couple equal legal rights to a heterosexual marriage (as civil partnerships, although not strictly marriage, do in the UK) then it can only be a good thing.

On gay couples adopting, before civil partnerships became law in the UK in 2005 it was legal for a single gay person to adopt. The recent hissy fit by the Catholic Church in Britain over the anti-discrimination laws that would force them to consider gay couples in their adoption agencies shows that, even though the first steps have been taken, the fight goes on against irrational victimisation of minorities.

[Darat]

If marriage was meant to be gay there wouldn't be mother-in-laws!*






(*In memory of the great Les Dawson)

[Ryokan]

(I seem to generally be drifting further to the left)

Or maybe not?

It's only in your country it's a right/left issue. Comes from only having two points of view; so if one is for, the other is against. In my country it's a much more complex issue, with parties both on the left and right being for/against.

[ponderingturtle]

See this is the result of letting societal roles get corrupted. It all started with letting women vote I tell you!

If we didn't want to have these problems we should have kept voting restricted to who the founders intended wealthy white men.

[ponderingturtle]

Or maybe not?

It's only in your country it's a right/left issue. Comes from only having two points of view; so if one is for, the other is against. In my country it's a much more complex issue, with parties both on the left and right being for/against.

Nope. Neither party is all that for it. And it is just as much a yes or no issue in your country as well.

[Oliver]

I've been thinking quite a bit about the issue lately. I used to be against it (even though I'm a Liberal Atheist) just on the grounds that it didn't seem right. But I recently changed my mind (I seem to generally be drifting further to the left) because I now think it's a complete non-issue. I mean who cares if gay people get married, it doesn't affect me in ANY way and the gays are happy, no-one loses.

Some people say it devalues their marriage if gay couples can do it. I don't buy this for a second, there's a whole lot worse going on in the world of straight marriage that would, from this point of view, devalue marriage. It's not going to make you love your spouse any less (if it does you're an idiot), it's not going to take away your marriage rights.

I'm just curious to hear from people opposed to it and their reasons why (apart from religious I suppose, seeing as that's obvious).

To me it appears to be conservatives making an issue out of nothing so they can campaign on it for elections.


If two people love each other - there shouldn't be anyone else allowed to influence and trying to criminalize this love. Even the church should understand that love is gods gift. At least that's what they're praying... :rolleyes:

Double-Moral-Standards from the Nut-Front.

[Ryokan]

Nope. Neither party is all that for it. And it is just as much a yes or no issue in your country as well.

Many parties in Norway are for it, including the Conservative Party. Of course it's a yes or no issue here as well, but it's not a right/left issue.

[Ryokan]

If two people love each other - there shouldn't be anyone else allowed to influence and trying to criminalize this love. Even the church should understand that love is gods gift. At least that's what they're praying... :rolleyes:

Double-Moral-Standards from the Nut-Front.

It's quite possible to love each other without being married, you know.

Personally, I never quite got the point of registering your love with the government.

[Matt the Poet]

Wouldn't this argument go away if we stopped being so obsessed with categorising people socially according to what they enjoy doing with their genitals and a consenting adult in their spare time?

[Oliver]

It's quite possible to love each other without being married, you know.

Personally, I never quite got the point of registering your love with the government.


Of course it's possible if you don't believe in god and marriage at all.
But what if both parties believe in god or just want to show their love to each other by marriage? What's the difference concerning the governmental part of a marriage? Since when should the Government cite the Bible in such a multi-cultural country like America? All the discussions about it are just meant to collect voters - especially the ones from the christian wrong right.

[strathmeyer]

It's quite possible to love each other without being married, you know.

Personally, I never quite got the point of registering your love with the government.

Well, it's the best way some people have of expressing their love.

[Ryokan]

Well, it's the best way some people have of expressing their love.

Oh, I get the ceremony part. It's the registering with the government part I don't get.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I get the ceremony part. It's the registering with the government part I don't get.

So you are against the rights of marriage? No being able to sue for wrongful death for anyone other than a blood relative and such?

[Nick Bogaerts]

No being able to sue for wrongful death for anyone other than a blood relative and such?

Should the penalty for the death of a person with a family be different than that of one without?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So you are against the rights of marriage? No being able to sue for wrongful death for anyone other than a blood relative and such?

Why limit it to those who have married? Why not cohabiting couples?

[tsg]

Should the penalty for the death of a person with a family be different than that of one without?

"Wrongful Death" is a civil suit, not a criminal one.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Wrongful Death" is a civil suit, not a criminal one.

Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?

[ponderingturtle]

Should the penalty for the death of a person with a family be different than that of one without?

Should the penalty for the death of a person be dependant on the income of the person?

I can see the arguements for and against it. But this is an issue of standing, and who has standing to sue for wrongful death. So who should have standing to sue?

[Darat]

Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?


Don't think that is what is being suggested but rather the fact that wrongful death (I think) can only be brought by the next-of-kin and that's one of the rights that marriage usually brings i.e. you become the next of kin for your spouse and vice-a-versa.

[ponderingturtle]

Why limit it to those who have married? Why not cohabiting couples?

Because how much is someone entitled to for the loss of a room mate? Or how do you establish that individuals cohabiting are a couple?

Marriage does make a very clear line of when they are very serious and have long term intentions more so than cohabiting might. But I think I would be confortable with long term cohabitation being possible to grant standing.

[tsg]

Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?

The point is that, for a civil action, there needs to be someone to bring the suit. In general that someone is limited to a family member or other "dependent party" who has suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of the death. It's not about whether the death of a single person should be cheaper than a married one, but who's allowed to bring the suit. Without some formal indication of "family" such as marriage, determining who has standing to bring such a suit becomes problematic.

Whether this is the right way to do it or not is certainly a valid argument. But the fact is that it is being done this way and denying that right to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual preference is nothing less than discrimination.

[drkitten]

Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?

Wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid.

It's not (and shouldn't be) any cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one. But it's a question of who has standing to sue. A child of a single person has exactly the same standing as a child of a married one, and the penalty will be identical. However, the unmarried partner can't sue in the same way that a married partner can.

It makes sense that I don't have standing to sue unless I can prove a close relationship to the deceased. Just because you promised to write a book for me doesn't mean that my publishing company can sue your murderer for the loss of income. We need a list of who's allowed to sue. But that doesn't mean we should exclude people from the list for arbitrary reasons.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

We only have two Presidential candidates that support it, both second-tier Democrats. Oh, and Edwards' wife. Hopefully she can brainwash him, or whatever it is that female spouses do.

Damn :mad: .

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Whether this is the right way to do it or not is certainly a valid argument. But the fact is that it is being done this way and denying that right to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual preference is nothing less than discrimination.

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.

[ponderingturtle]

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.

So you would favor a common law marriage with all the effects of marriage for cohabiting couples? How would divorce in such a situation work? Or is an unmarried individual not entitled to the same legal status and ability to bring civil charges as a married person even though they are cohabiting?

It is hard to redefine an aspect of what rights go to what individuals in such an general fashion.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And in another reality.

An Ontario Government Cabinet Minister married his partner yesterday with best wishes from the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070804.wsmithermanmarriage0804/BNStory/National/home

The World is a Very Big Place (apologies to a.f.u).

[pgwenthold]

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.


You don't see why the absence of a contract should prevent one from getting all the benefits one would get if there were a contract?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I oppose gay marriage.

Because turning the gay community into a growth market for divorce lawyers would technically be a hate-crime. ;)

[JJR]

It's simple.

1. The Government allows Gay Marriage.
2. All the Democrats become Gay.
3. No more Democrats.

Communists must go. The orgasm is NOT the true enemy of civilization you silly totalitarians. Yield to inertia.

[Oliver]

I oppose gay marriage.

Because turning the gay community into a growth market for divorce lawyers would technically be a hate-crime. ;)


Someone please ban this guy and his nasty humor...


:D

[ponderingturtle]

Someone please ban this guy and his nasty humor...


:D

Hey there is also the point that if you want to prevent as much gay sex as you can, what better way is there than gay marriage?

[jsiv]

In that case, I'm definitely in favor of it.


Gays, go forth and marry.

[drkitten]

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.

... except that then you have the problem of defining "cohabitating" in a reasonable and clear-cut fashion. Are we "cohabitating" if we share a hotel room on a trip? How about if after the trip, I come back to your place for a one-night stand? How about a one-week stand? How about if we get together one week a year and have done so for ten years? (I think there was a movie about that -- "Same Time, Next Year," with Alan Alda.)

What happens if we stop cohabitating -- I get a Fullbright or something and spend the next ten months in Germany?

Part of the reason why the law on common-law marriage is such a mess is because it's so hard to define when such a marriage begins and ends. The wedding ceremony at least provides a simple bright-line test; if you've had that ceremony, you're married (and you're married as of the point when the ceremony is held).

[tsg]

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.

First, the problem is in the definition of "cohabiting couple". Someone I met in a bar last night who spent the night on my couch probably shouldn't qualify, whereas someone with whom I've spent the past 40 years probably should. But where do you draw the line?

Second, the "piece of paper" says that two people are committed to each other (at least for the time being) and will not only share financial rights, but responsibilities as well. If two people decide they don't want to share those responsibilities, that's fine, nobody's forcing them. But they don't get to take the benefits either. A marriage license is little more than an article of incorporation for private citizens.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be forced into that arrangement regardless of how long they've been together. Nor do I think that there should be a time restriction when two people can enter that arrangement. They should consent to the arrangement and I don't think signing a document that they have done so and will live up to the responsibilities that comes with it is unreasonable.

[Yiab]

As far as I'm considered, gay marriage is a non-issue. Of course, I'm Canadian so I don't have to deal with it like you Americans do.

Here are the reasons I've heard given against gay marriage:

The Bible is against it.
No argument here, the Bible is pretty homophobic. Of course, I don't care what the Bible says about anything and it shouldn't dictate policy.
Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
According to who? As humans we decide what our words are going to mean and if we want to have the word "marriage" refer to a legally sanctioned partnership between two adults of unspecified genders, what should stop us?
Children shouldn't be raised by gay parents.
This raises a reasonable question; are there any disadvantages to a child if they are raised by gay parents? This question can be and has been addressed scientifically and no negative effects have been found other than the bigotry of others (see the Penn & Teller: ******** episode "Family Values"). Of course, only lesbian couples have been studied in detail (according to that episode) so there is still the question for gay male couples, but thus far there seems to be no validated objection to children being raised by gay parents.
What's the purpose of marriage if not to produce children?
If this question were actually relevant we should be banning out-of-wedlock childbirth and nobody who is sterile should be allowed to marry. Even ignoring this point that marriage cannot simply be about reproduction, there are many other benefits bestowed on a married couple such as tax breaks, special legal treatment in the case of one of them being accused of a crime (at least here in Canada, iirc) and various changes in behaviour of inheritances, none of which have anything to do with children.
Additionally, many gay couples can have children by way of surrogacy and it won't be that much longer before genetics allow a gay couple to have a child who is genetically entirely their own (with the aid a consenting, compatible surrogate mother in the case of gay male couples).
Gay marriage would create unnecessary complications in custody battles and when determining inheritance and power of attorney.
These situations are extremely complicated as it stands with the forbidding of gay marriage for the simple reason that the existing laws for married couples are being forced not to apply. If we allowed gay marriage custody battles, inheritance issues and questions of spousal power of attorney could simply use the existing legal framework for married couples, ultimately making things a lot simpler.
Marriage is a religious institution and allowing gay marriage infringes on religious freedoms.
Frankly, I don't see the problem here, either. If we accept that marriage is a religious institution then nobody should be able to get married under the law and each church can decide for itself who it wants to allow to marry. If the law still wants to allow something like marriage to take place, it can simply rename the existing process for everybody and there is no more objection here to legally recognized homosexual couples.
On the other hand, if marriage is considered as a purely secular institution, religious objections should have no bearing on it whatsoever and once again the objection simply vanishes.
Allowing gay marriage is like having the law say that being gay or lesbian is okay.
Right. What's the problem? If you have some objection to gay people or behaviour, that's your business, but it has no place in the legal system.
But I don't want to see (or have my children see) gay people behaving affectionately towards each other in public.
First, they behave affectionately in public whether married or not, so this objection is irrelevant. Second, your children are going to see (and probably make friends with) gay couples as adults and so early exposure is a good way to ensure that they won't be uncomfortable with their gay friends' affection later in life. Third, anything which restricts the showing of affection of gay couples in public should also impose the same restrictions on straight couples as well.
It just feels wrong.
That's supposed to be an objection?


So, having shot down every one of the objections I've heard, I can see no legal, ethical way to obstruct the legalization of gay marriage.
Personally, I quite like the idea of gay couples having all the same freedoms as straight couples, but I am also in favour of abolishing marriage as an institution entirely, so I am left in a position of being conditionally in favour of gay marriage (i.e. if straight marriage is allowed then I think gay marriage should be as well).

Anything I missed?

[JJR]

In that case, I'm definitely in favor of it.


Gays, go forth and marry.

Gay. :p

EDIT: Seconded.

[Miss Anthrope]

The only reason my husband and I are legally married is because of legal concerns, in the realm of "if something awful happens". We never needed or cared about the ceremony. It's only to ensure we have the legal rights of next of kin.

Take away all the social engineering concerns and you are left with this: gay couples are not getting the full legal protection and recognition across the US (and world) that they deserve as human beings. People are people are people. Gay adults should have the same right to make this choice that straight adults do.

[JJR]

The only reason my husband and I are legally married is because of legal concerns, in the realm of "if something awful happens". We never needed or cared about the ceremony. It's only to ensure we have the legal rights of next of kin.

Take away all the social engineering concerns and you are left with this: gay couples are not getting the full legal protection and recognition across the US (and world) that they deserve as human beings. People are people are people. Gay adults should have the same right to make this choice that straight adults do.

Yep. :p

EDIT: And I would have let my friend's Gay brother tickle my neice but he was more interested in bugging me. :)

Gays are okay around kids.

[Cello Man]

Everyone's posted the good arguments in defense of gay marriage, so I'll just leave the thread with this.

rixkck8QnjY

[Miss Anthrope]

Yep. :p

EDIT: And I would have let my friend's Gay brother tickle my neice but he was more interested in bugging me. :)

Gays are okay around kids.

Good, because my gay friends love my kids, and vice versa. I'd hate to think they were giving them cooties this whole time :wackyjiggy:

[In My Spare Time]

Or maybe not?

It's only in your country it's a right/left issue. Comes from only having two points of view; so if one is for, the other is against. In my country it's a much more complex issue, with parties both on the left and right being for/against.

I've been very curious about why Norway doesn't have marriage yet. Would you mind summarizing what the arguments and state of affairs are there? I've been attempting to pay attention to marriage rights in Norway and the rest of Scandanavia since my family is historically mostly from there, so I'd love the inside perspective.

A good friend of mine just got domestic partner'd due to Washington State's new law that gives a couple of the rights of marriage (hospital visitation, inheritence and a couple other less controversial ones). This is their third time getting registered as a couple, having gotten married in Oregon when the Portland mayor was ignoring state law and in British Columbia after Canada started allowing marriage. His BF/DP/husband asked him how many times they were going to have to do this, and the response was "as many as it takes".
Shouldn't the "family values" right wing take note of the effort that people like this are making to be a family and realize that this is good for marriage? Obviously they won't, of course.

[pgwenthold]

Gay people who insist on getting married over and over again make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage, where you only have to do it once.

[/joke]

[tsg]

Gay people who insist on getting married over and over again make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage, where you only have to do it once.

[/joke]

The best line I heard is that people who are genuinely interested in defending marriage ought to be going after divorce.

[Freethinker]

I'll preface this by saying I have no moral or other objection to gay marriage, nor am I arguing against it. This is just the regurgitation of some thoughts I've had on the subject.

Legal status as next of kin is an important component of marriage. Another is to confer the benefits of a full-time long term job to women who may be unable to earn such benefits for themselves due to the disruptions from pregnancy and child rearing. While the importance of the second has decreased in modern times, it can't be overlooked. The financial burden on governments and employers due to these spousal benefits is very high. IMO, they should only be provided to partners in parenting as there is no inherent need for a spouse to get a share of their deceased spouse's retirement if they had a full working life.

IMO, governments should reduce marriage to its minimum form: A legal partnership that conveys a legal familial relationship and some degree of co-ownership of household assets. The addition of a second legal relationship, that of a cooperative parenting partnership that could be established between the legal parents of a child, either by nature or adoption or some combination of the two could be used for the sharing of benefits like retirement, medical insurance etc..

[EvilSmurf]

<snip>
Of course, only lesbian couples have been studied in detail
<snip>

Thank you for helping me find my new career direction. Studying lesbian couples in detail sounds like fun.

[Ryokan]

I've been very curious about why Norway doesn't have marriage yet. Would you mind summarizing what the arguments and state of affairs are there? I've been attempting to pay attention to marriage rights in Norway and the rest of Scandanavia since my family is historically mostly from there, so I'd love the inside perspective.

Seattle is riddled with Scandinavians. I have a ton of distant relatives there.

Anyway, the matter is a bit complicated, with a lot of political horse trading, but I'll try to explain.

There is majority in parliament for gay marriage, and there has been so for quite some time now. However, our last administration was a coalition between the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Christian People's Party. The Christian People's Party is actually a center party, although a right leaning one, so not really comparable to the Christian right of the USA - more like the Christian Democrats of Germany. However, they're against gay marriage, and blocked any attempt to get it through parliament.

Our current administration consists of a coalition of Labor, the Socialist Left Party and the Center Party. The Center Party is a left leaning center party, mostly dealing with rural and agrarian matters. But they're also very conservative, more so than most parties on the right (probably because of the rural part), and are against gay marriage and has blocked any attempt to get it through parliament.

Both these parties think the issue is so important, they are not willing to be part of a coalition that makes gay marriage legal in Norway.

There was an attempt two years ago to sneak it through parliament, where Labor and the Socialist Left Party tried to make a deal with the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. This deal, however, said that religious groups that were against gay marriage would be forced to have to marry gays, and this was not acceptable to the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, who thought that groups who didn't accept gay marriage wouldn't have to marry them.

There is still work being done on this, though, and since there is, in fact, majority in parliament for this, I doubt it'll be long before we see gay marriages in Norway.

It's not a hot issue in Norway, though. Gay partnerships, cohabitating couples and married couples have pretty much the same rights already.

The only really gay issue that is still hot in Norway is that of adoption rights, and although there's also majority for this in parliament, I'm not so sure the majority of citizens favor it. But we're getting there.

Hope this wasn't too confusing :p

[tsg]

Thank you for helping me find my new career direction. Studying lesbian couples in detail sounds like fun.

Not to burst your bubble, but they don't typically look like the lesbians you find in porn.


ETA: Just to clarify, because it occurred to me after I posted it how this could be taken: Before somebody thinks I'm calling lesbians ugly, all I'm saying is that porn lesbians aren't representative of real lesbians anymore than porn stars or situations are representative of real life. It was a shot at EvilSmurf, not lesbians.

[Hokulele]

<snip>

IMO, governments should reduce marriage to its minimum form: A legal partnership that conveys a legal familial relationship and some degree of co-ownership of household assets. The addition of a second legal relationship, that of a cooperative parenting partnership that could be established between the legal parents of a child, either by nature or adoption or some combination of the two could be used for the sharing of benefits like retirement, medical insurance etc..


Since you include adoption as an option, I think that both elements of your definition of marriage could be equally met by couples of any combination of gender. I know you were saying that you were not arguing against gay marriage, and I just wanted to clarify this for my own benefit.

[In My Spare Time]

Seattle is riddled with Scandinavians. ...snip...
Hope this wasn't too confusing :p

There are quite a few of us here, but it's nothing like Wisconsin/Minnesota.

Your explanation helped a lot, thanks much. My lack of knowledge of the issues the Center Party focuses on seems to have caused most of my confusion.

[Freethinker]

Since you include adoption as an option, I think that both elements of your definition of marriage could be equally met by couples of any combination of gender. I know you were saying that you were not arguing against gay marriage, and I just wanted to clarify this for my own benefit.

Yes, I did mean any combination of parents. Gay, straight, cross-dressing. You name it.

[Ryokan]

My lack of knowledge of the issues the Center Party focuses on seems to have caused most of my confusion.

Don't worry, it confuses us Norwegians too.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thank you for helping me find my new career direction. Studying lesbian couples in detail sounds like fun.

You're probably going to be disappointed to find most lesbians, look less like supermodels and more like regular people.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You don't see why the absence of a contract should prevent one from getting all the benefits one would get if there were a contract?

No, I don't see why a third party (government) should grant rights to individuals simply because they have entered into a contract with each other which the government is not a party to.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's not a hot issue in Norway, though. Gay partnerships, cohabitating couples and married couples have pretty much the same rights already.

Given the queries in this thread about how to define a cohabiting couple, how does Norway go about it?

[JJR]

Norway still struggling over the Gay adoption uh-boy-I-might-be-kinda-a-Gayhippie-sometimes thang? Sounds like closed minded nazi nerd gypsy whispering from the San Diego Comic Con or something to me. Yet another nerd prom . . . unfolds.

I had good experiences with Gays as a teen (Rocky Horror Picture Show) and believe that it is possible for Gays to adopt children. I have had some problems with Gays but that's just due to their desire to be Communists. I cackle at my Southern friends for being NaziCatholics also so who is to say which extreme is worse? They're both closed-minded mindsets.

It's that friendly banter we need more of, "She's a Nazi . .. because she's Catholic!!! Dum dum DUUUMMM" . .. I said this to my neice recently because we were both raised Catholic and I wanted to help her. It's that half-teasing sugar coated jibe thing and I believe that in this case what works for family can work for a country or possibly the world.

Actually, I'd bet on it working for the world. I'd bet on it right now because we're all family. If that sounds at all ominous, then may I suggest that we have to stop worrying about who has been appointed for the, "Dad" position (who cares anyway?? Dad just gives us the quarters, we go play video games, and sub-leaders, pecking rights, and leadership are of the highest importance during the gaming mission. During play, we boss ourselves for the fun of it more than we get bossed by dear ol' pappy) and just try every day to do what we do with our family (even biting a head off or two when wronged).

Get er dun.

[tsg]

No, I don't see why a third party (government) should grant rights to individuals simply because they have entered into a contract with each other which the government is not a party to.

Are you against the idea of corporations as well?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Are you against the idea of corporations as well?

What rights does the government grant corporations?

[NeoRicen]

No, I don't see why a third party (government) should grant rights to individuals simply because they have entered into a contract with each other which the government is not a party to.
In a Democracy Government = People (perhaps less that it should in most places).

Now that that's out of the way. Many of the benefits of marriage are received through interaction with other entities (hospitals, prisons for visitation, home loans etc.) many of which are publicly controlled (through elected government) so Marriage is a way of informing the public of your status so they can give you the benefits they agree on (through voting and legislation) for mutual benefit (I'll give you X so I can have X too).

Seeing as Gay couples have the same relationship with others of the same sex that straight couples do with the opposite sex, it seems reasonable and fair the Public (through government) grants the same benefits to these couples.

Some people are (IMO) selfish on this matter and don't want to extend the benefits to these couples. That's how I see it, not the government being party to a contract, but people granting benefits to each other so that they may receive the same benefits so everyone lives happier overall.

Something I forgot to mention is the adoption factor. I personally don't think gay couples would be any less able to raise a child, and they aren't going to make the gay or anything (even if they do, so what?). Only problem is discrimination against the child for having 2 dads or something. Many frame their arguments this way but I feel it's dishonest and an attempt to prey on people's emotions to advance an entirely different agenda on the issue (most likely religious).

[drkitten]

What rights does the government grant corporations?

What rights doesn't the government grant corporations? Corporations are legally people, and as such have more or less all the rights that other people have (albeit non-citizens; corporations can't vote). They can open bank accounts, own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, hold licences, yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps more importantly, corporations can exercise all of these rights independently of the people who actually comprise the corporation. If you and I decide to get together and buy a beach house,... well, we own it. If it turns out that someone sues us (we let a tree fall on the neighbor's fence), we are liable for the damages. If you and I decide to incorporate, the corporation owns the house and the corporation is liable for the damages; if the corporation doesn't have enough assets to cover the judgement, you and I are still protected (so I'm not going to lose my year-round home to cover the judgement against the beach house).

Similarly, if I die when we own the house jointly, there's a huge mess in probate to determine who "inherits" my half of the house. If the corporation owns it, there's no problem; the corporation owned it before my death, the corporation owns it after my death, and the ownership of the house remains unchanged.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What rights doesn't the government grant corporations? Corporations are legally people, and as such have more or less all the rights that other people have (albeit non-citizens; corporations can't vote). They can open bank accounts, own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, hold licences, yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps more importantly, corporations can exercise all of these rights independently of the people who actually comprise the corporation. If you and I decide to get together and buy a beach house,... well, we own it. If it turns out that someone sues us (we let a tree fall on the neighbor's fence), we are liable for the damages. If you and I decide to incorporate, the corporation owns the house and the corporation is liable for the damages; if the corporation doesn't have enough assets to cover the judgement, you and I are still protected (so I'm not going to lose my year-round home to cover the judgement against the beach house).

Similarly, if I die when we own the house jointly, there's a huge mess in probate to determine who "inherits" my half of the house. If the corporation owns it, there's no problem; the corporation owned it before my death, the corporation owns it after my death, and the ownership of the house remains unchanged.

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

[NeoRicen]

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

The government (ie the People) grants benefits to corporations so they can run and we benefit, the government gives benefits to married couples so they can function well and we get those same benefits too if we choose to marry (or incorporate).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In a Democracy Government = People (perhaps less that it should in most places).

Now that that's out of the way. Many of the benefits of marriage are received through interaction with other entities (hospitals, prisons for visitation, home loans etc.) many of which are publicly controlled (through elected government) so Marriage is a way of informing the public of your status so they can give you the benefits they agree on (through voting and legislation) for mutual benefit (I'll give you X so I can have X too).

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people. All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

[NeoRicen]

A marriage helps make the connection more public, not everyone will know about your relationship, if your wife is in a coma in Hospital or something how will the people working there know about your relationship? You could get 100 people to testify but then when documentation passes onto other people for legal reasons something will look wrong. Marriage just simplifies things, those people living together should just get married, you don't need a ceremony.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The government (ie the People) grants benefits to corporations so they can run and we benefit, the government gives benefits to married couples so they can function well and we get those same benefits too if we choose to marry (or incorporate).

If we are allowed to marry. And of course incorporation is open to single people, couples, gays any anybody else, marriage is not. Why?

For example two elderly women who have lived together their entire life. If we simply extend marriage to include gay marriage, then some of them will be able to marry. Some however will not (for example sisters). What possible benefit is there to society in forcing the surviving person to sell the home they lived in together, because she shared it with her sister not her husband or her same sex partner?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A marriage helps make the connection more public, not everyone will know about your relationship, if your wife is in a coma in Hospital or something how will the people working there know about your relationship? You could get 100 people to testify but then when documentation passes onto other people for legal reasons something will look wrong. Marriage just simplifies things, those people living together should just get married, you don't need a ceremony.

Do you think they demand marriage certificates before they let husbands visit their wives?

Thanks for telling me what I should do - I value your opinion as much as you would value my opinion if I were to to tell you how you should run your life.

[drkitten]

I know all of this. I see no way of comparing it to marriage.

A corporation is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

A marriage is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A corporation is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

A marriage is a voluntary association of people to which the government grants certain rights regarding the ability to act as a unit and to take actions regarding each others' interests.

The government does not grant the shareholders in a corporation any rights in relation to the conduct of their fellow shareholders affairs or any benefits by virtue of being a common shareholder with any other person. Equally you cannot file a joint tax return (at least in the UK) between a person and a corporate or (apart from some very limited circumstances) are their tax benefits on transfers between shareholders and corporates. All of these benefits and many, many others ARE available in a marriage

[ponderingturtle]

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people.

Not true, adoption is a different way and blood relations are recognised.

[Freethinker]

If it was simply a shortcut for informing public bodies of the relationship between two people, it would be fine, but in fact it is the ONLY way that public bodies will recognise that there IS a relationship between two people. All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

How would you prove such a relationship if one spouse dies? Somebody could just troll the obituaries for somebody close to their age and show up with a claim that they are entitled to an inheritance and survivor's benefits. While a non-paper relationship could be established in most cases, the license is irrefutable proof that both parties agreed to the deal.

[drkitten]

The government does not grant the shareholders in a corporation any rights in relation to the conduct of their fellow shareholders affairs or any benefits by virtue of being a common shareholder with any other person.

Wrong. As a shareholder, for example, I'm entitled to access the books of the corporation, and there are various other rights regarding fiduciary responsibility to the (other) shareholders that I am both required to follow and that I can legally enforce upon my fellow shareholders.

All of these benefits and many, many others ARE available in a marriage

So you're suggesting that marriage and incorporation are not identical? How.... obvious. The simple fact that the number and type of similarities vastly outweighs the the number and type of differences will presumably have little effect on your opinion, then.

Is it still true that you "see no way of comparing" the two?

[ponderingturtle]

So Jaggy if two people who lived together for say 15 years separate, they should be forced to divorce eath other? Why wouldn't the end of such a relationship involve such a court regulated distribution of assets?

[Dumbledore]

I have had some problems with Gays but that's just due to their desire to be Communists.


So all gay people are communist!!? Do you actually know any gay people or are your extensive experiences at the Rocky Horror picture show your only "gay" experience?:rolleyes:

[tsg]

What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?

What if those people don't want to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage?

[In My Spare Time]

So all gay people are communist!!? Do you actually know any gay people or are your extensive experiences at the Rocky Horror picture show your only "gay" experience?:rolleyes:

Well I'm gay and I'm a socialist, so since socialism is the same as communism and I represent all gays, we're all communists.

Also, all gays live near Seattle and work in marketing. The analogy breaks down a little bit there. Also, my house isn't big enough for all of us.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Wrong. As a shareholder, for example, I'm entitled to access the books of the corporation, and there are various other rights regarding fiduciary responsibility to the (other) shareholders that I am both required to follow and that I can legally enforce upon my fellow shareholders.

What access to the books of the corporation do you believe you are entitled to as a shareholder?

What rights do you have over the conduct of the SHAREHOLDERS, not the CORPORATION?

So you're suggesting that marriage and incorporation are not identical? How.... obvious. The simple fact that the number and type of similarities vastly outweighs the the number and type of differences will presumably have little effect on your opinion, then.

It is not a fact, it is your unsupported assertion so you are right that it has little effect.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So Jaggy if two people who lived together for say 15 years separate, they should be forced to divorce eath other? Why wouldn't the end of such a relationship involve such a court regulated distribution of assets?

Fair question. I would say that society has exactly the same right to take an interest in this situation as it does if they had lived together with a piece of paper (ie been married) for 15 years. i.e. the courts involvement should be based on the facts, not the presence or absence of a piece of paper. After all in a divorce the argument is that both parties have contributed to their joint assets which applies equally here.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not true, adoption is a different way and blood relations are recognised.

Please spell out the circumstances in which adoption or being a blood relation allow you to be treated as spouses/partners in the eyes of the government, which is the subject under discussion.

[brodski]

Norway still struggling over the Gay adoption uh-boy-I-might-be-kinda-a-Gayhippie-sometimes thang? Sounds like closed minded nazi nerd gypsy whispering from the San Diego Comic Con or something to me. Yet another nerd prom . . . unfolds.

I had good experiences with Gays as a teen (Rocky Horror Picture Show) and believe that it is possible for Gays to adopt children. I have had some problems with Gays but that's just due to their desire to be Communists. I cackle at my Southern friends for being NaziCatholics also so who is to say which extreme is worse? They're both closed-minded mindsets.

It's that friendly banter we need more of, "She's a Nazi . .. because she's Catholic!!! Dum dum DUUUMMM" . .. I said this to my neice recently because we were both raised Catholic and I wanted to help her. It's that half-teasing sugar coated jibe thing and I believe that in this case what works for family can work for a country or possibly the world.

Actually, I'd bet on it working for the world. I'd bet on it right now because we're all family. If that sounds at all ominous, then may I suggest that we have to stop worrying about who has been appointed for the, "Dad" position (who cares anyway?? Dad just gives us the quarters, we go play video games, and sub-leaders, pecking rights, and leadership are of the highest importance during the gaming mission. During play, we boss ourselves for the fun of it more than we get bossed by dear ol' pappy) and just try every day to do what we do with our family (even biting a head off or two when wronged).

Get er dun.

Whisky Tango Foxtrort?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What if those people don't want to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage?

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

In effect it is a substance over form treatment - if you meet the conditions you are in, even if you want to call what you do something else. This is used elsewhere (for example if you act in the manner of a director of a company, you are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of such a director whether you are formally appointed as one or not - ie your actions, not the paperwork, determines the treatment).

http://www.ffw.com/Publications/Files/817688b8-c272-4386-8c06-0aa94d6b5df0.PDF

[Damien Evans]

Whisky Tango Foxtrort?

my thoughts exactly

[Segnosaur]

Marriage is a religious institution and allowing gay marriage infringes on religious freedoms.
Frankly, I don't see the problem here, either. If we accept that marriage is a religious institution then nobody should be able to get married under the law and each church can decide for itself who it wants to allow to marry.
There is one problem with that argument (at least for us Canadians).

Thanks to our flawed charter of rights, Canadians do not have property rights. While we do have freedom of religion, the re-definition of marriage did not contain any explicit protection for churches not willing to marry gay couples.
This means that there is a danger that a gay couple will sue a religious congregation that refused to allow its church to be used for the ceremony, and since churches do serve a semi-public function they could be forced to perform the ceremony. (Remember, while we do have freedom of religion, we also have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, when 2 rights are in conflict, one of them will have to fall.)

In fact, prior to the vote which legalized same sex marriage in Canada, several Liberal MPs threatened to vote against the bill because of just that risk. (The were demanding an addition to the bill which would say "no church will be forced to perform marriages".

There are a couple of legal precidents (although they are weak)... a catholic school was successfully sued by a homosexual student who was refused the right to bring his boyfriend to the prom. (Admittedly, this isn't a perfect precident since the school was partially funded by government dollars). And, a lesbian couple sued a "Knights of Columbus" hall for not allowing them to hold their wedding reception there. (Again, this isn't a perfect precident, since there were also contract issues.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This means that there is a danger that a gay couple will sue a religious congregation that refused to allow its church to be used for the ceremony, and since churches do serve a semi-public function they could be forced to perform the ceremony. (Remember, while we do have freedom of religion, we also have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, when 2 rights are in conflict, one of them will have to fall.)

We had a similar issue in the UK, where new anti-discrimination legislation in the area of adoption meant that adoption services run by the Catholic Church would be required to consider gay couples as adoptive parents.

Issue was slightly fudged in that they were given longer to comply with the legislation (end of 2008), but essentially the position was that if they were involved in a public function, they did not get a free pass to discriminate on religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6473831.stm

[Ryokan]

Given the queries in this thread about how to define a cohabiting couple, how does Norway go about it?

Sorry for the late reply, I have been deprived of my internet connection for a few days :p

Any couple that has lived together for at least 9 months.

[Oliver]

...the position was that if they were involved in a public function, they did not get a free pass to discriminate on religious grounds.


...and Jesus would fully agree with that. Amen. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/angelic007.gif

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry for the late reply, I have been deprived of my internet connection for a few days :p

Any couple that has lived together for at least 9 months.

Thank you. Is it any couple (for example would it cover the two sisters in my previous example) or do they need to be "living together" as well as living together?

[ponderingturtle]

Please spell out the circumstances in which adoption or being a blood relation allow you to be treated as spouses/partners in the eyes of the government, which is the subject under discussion.

You did not specify the nature of the relationship you wanted recognised.

[Ryokan]

Thank you. Is it any couple (for example would it cover the two sisters in my previous example) or do they need to be "living together" as well as living together?

I'm not a lawyer, and has not been in such a relationship myself, so I don't know for sure, but I assume the latter. I'll look around a bit and see if I can't find the details of the law.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You did not specify the nature of the relationship you wanted recognised.

There may have been some clues in the context. Can I suggest starting with the thread title and then reading the posts?

[ponderingturtle]

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

Yes and the acting in a certain fashion is filling out a marriage licience, not living arangements. So you are right about that.

In effect it is a substance over form treatment - if you meet the conditions you are in, even if you want to call what you do something else. This is used elsewhere (for example if you act in the manner of a director of a company, you are subject to all the rights and responsibilities of such a director whether you are formally appointed as one or not - ie your actions, not the paperwork, determines the treatment).

No it is perception over stated intent.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes and the acting in a certain fashion is filling out a marriage licience, not living arangements. So you are right about that.

That must be why society doesn't restrict your benefit entitlement if you live with somebody, only if you marry them. After all the paperwork is the important bit, right?

Which bit do you think society has an interest in encouraging, signing a piece of paper or acting as a responsible member of a couple/family?

No it is perception over stated intent.

So you think shadow directors who actually do manage the affairs of a company and act in all ways as a director should not have the same responsibilities as those who complete the correct paperwork to be appointed directors? Because they have not stated their intent to become directors that should be the defining matter?

If you think that paperwork is more important than actions we are not going to reach agreement.

[ponderingturtle]

That must be why society doesn't restrict your benefit entitlement if you live with somebody, only if you marry them. After all the paperwork is the important bit, right?

So roommates should get your benefit entitlement also, as it is the living situation that counts not any public statement of commitment in a legally binding sense? Potential private statements of possible commitment are enough.

Which bit do you think society has an interest in encouraging, signing a piece of paper or acting as a responsible member of a couple/family?


But with out a piece of paper how can you tell the existence of a couple/family? Here is a different question, why should you need a living will or anything powers of attorney documents? Who they are living with should clarify that right? Medical proxy should not require documents to decide just the privately stated intent, as no one would think to lie about such a thing.


So you think shadow directors who actually do manage the affairs of a company and act in all ways as a director should not have the same responsibilities as those who complete the correct paperwork to be appointed directors? Because they have not stated their intent to become directors that should be the defining matter?

If you think that paperwork is more important than actions we are not going to reach agreement.

Where did this come from? I have made no points about corporations. But clearly you think medical proxies and other pointless legal paperwork should be abolished.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So roommates should get your benefit entitlement also, as it is the living situation that counts not any public statement of commitment in a legally binding sense? Potential private statements of possible commitment are enough.

Not necessarily, as they do not form a sexual couple which is what the benefits are aimed at. However I am open to extending the system to allow people who are not currently covered (such as the sisters I referred to earlier) to access those benefits if they choose to. As they could not do so by action, a piece of paper would be required.

But with out a piece of paper how can you tell the existence of a couple/family?

By actions.

Here is a different question, why should you need a living will or anything powers of attorney documents? Who they are living with should clarify that right? Medical proxy should not require documents to decide just the privately stated intent, as no one would think to lie about such a thing.

Not clear what you are trying to get at here - do you think that unmarried couples are more likely to lie about their partners wishes than married ones? If so can I see some evidence for that?

Where did this come from? I have made no points about corporations. But clearly you think medical proxies and other pointless legal paperwork should be abolished.

It comes from the example in the part you quoted and that your statement ("No it is perception over stated intent") which I quoted was in response to. Which involved shadow directors. I have never said paperwork is pointless or should be abolished, you appear to have made this up. What I have said is that paperwork is not DEFINITIVE, which is a very different thing.

Of course that principle is already accepted in relation to marriage, particularly when it comes to immigration. For example here,

http://www.iasuk.org/module_images/Family%20-%20spouses%20(Jan%2006).pdf

where legal marriage is not sufficient to allow someone to bring a spouse to the UK and there is a need to see whether there is a genuine relationship. Helpfully there are examples of the type of evidence you would need to establish that the relationship was genuine - so your "practical" points appear to have been dealt with as it appears that the government is quite capable of identifying where two people are genuinely a couple or not.

[tsg]

If society has decided that acting in a certain fashion should bring certain rights and responsibilities then if you act that way, you are covered.

Who decides whether you meet the requirements, and who decides what those requirements are?

But more to the point since I haven't seen you address this yet, what exactly is the harm in signing a piece of paper declaring your intent?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Who decides whether you meet the requirements, and who decides what those requirements are?

But more to the point since I haven't seen you address this yet, what exactly is the harm in signing a piece of paper declaring your intent?

Those who grant the benefit, same as always. See above post on requirement to demonstrate a genuine relationship to access one of the benefits of marriage.

It allows discrimination. By excluding people from being able to sign the piece of paper, you can exclude them from benefits. If you define access to benefits by someone's actions, it makes discrimination more difficult (or at least requires it to be more overt therefore increasing the likelihood it will be challenged) because if they meet the test, they get the benefit.

Given that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine?

"All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?"

[ponderingturtle]

Not necessarily, as they do not form a sexual couple which is what the benefits are aimed at. However I am open to extending the system to allow people who are not currently covered (such as the sisters I referred to earlier) to access those benefits if they choose to. As they could not do so by action, a piece of paper would be required.


So why are you determining that sexual couples should be merited over non sexual couples? I guess that would mean that many marriages would lose that status as they are no longer sexual. So now marriages do not get divorce but people who shack up together do.


By actions.
And filling out the license and getting married is an action. And it shows exactly what you want, and not what society thinks someone in your apparent position should want.

Not clear what you are trying to get at here - do you think that unmarried couples are more likely to lie about their partners wishes than married ones? If so can I see some evidence for that?
I mean that with out direct proof of intent, in the form of a marriage or a living will or medical proxy what do you have? Intent is not enough it is the documents that matter.

For example as an EMT I was not allowed to listen to anyone but the patient as to what they wanted, and if the patient could not express their wishes no one could say have me forgo treatment, with out a DNR(another of those annoying forms)

[tsg]

Those who grant the benefit, same as always. See above post on requirement to demonstrate a genuine relationship to access one of the benefits of marriage.

And what if these two people don't want those rights or responsibilities? Do they have a say?

It allows discrimination. By excluding people from being able to sign the piece of paper, you can exclude them from benefits. If you define access to benefits by someone's actions, it makes discrimination more difficult (or at least requires it to be more overt therefore increasing the likelihood it will be challenged) because if they meet the test, they get the benefit.

Do you really think getting rid of the piece of paper will eliminate the discrimination?

Given that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine?

"All the evidence may be perfectly clear that there is a relationship, you could have 100 witnesses to testify that you have lived together as a couple for 60 years, but if you don't have a bit of paper then the government ignores that relationship entirely. Why? What harm comes from extending rights to those relationships?"

Nothing. In fact many places have a similar system called "common law" marriage. As stated before, it's problematic at best. Signing a piece of paper to declare that relationship eliminates the need for 100 witnesses testifying as to the nature of the relationship.

Your problem is not with the piece of paper, but who's allowed to sign it. That's what we're trying to resolve with the issue of gay marriage.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So why are you determining that sexual couples should be merited over non sexual couples? I guess that would mean that many marriages would lose that status as they are no longer sexual. So now marriages do not get divorce but people who shack up together do.

Marriage is an attempt by society to reward certain behaviour, whether you or I like it or not that sexual partnership IS what marriage is intended to cover.

You must also have missed my post where I said I was quite happy to extend the scope to include non-sexual couples, as that demonstrates that your conclusion is wrong.

And filling out the license and getting married is an action. And it shows exactly what you want, and not what society thinks someone in your apparent position should want.

Do you really think that society introduced marriage so people would fill in bits of paper? Or, just possibly, was it to reward certain behaviours? Do you really think the paperwork is more important than the reality?

I mean that with out direct proof of intent, in the form of a marriage or a living will or medical proxy what do you have? Intent is not enough it is the documents that matter.

For example as an EMT I was not allowed to listen to anyone but the patient as to what they wanted, and if the patient could not express their wishes no one could say have me forgo treatment, with out a DNR(another of those annoying forms)

Why do you continue with your assertion that I oppose paperwork when I have told you this is untrue? It is almost as if you wish to set up a strawman to attack.

If you can only listen to the patient to find out their wishes, then I fail to see whether it matters if they are married, living together, single or cohabiting with a hamster called Nigel. i.e no impact from extending the availability of the rights of marriage in this situation. What was your point?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And what if these two people don't want those rights or responsibilities? Do they have a say?

No - if society decides that certain behaviours bring certain results, then you don't get an opt out. Bit like when you have children really - you don't get to opt out of paying support for them just because you aren't named on the birth certificate.

Do you really think getting rid of the piece of paper will eliminate the discrimination?

Eliminate? No. Reduce and make more difficult? Yes.

Nothing. In fact many places have a similar system called "common law" marriage. As stated before, it's problematic at best. Signing a piece of paper to declare that relationship eliminates the need for 100 witnesses testifying as to the nature of the relationship.

There is no need - in the vast majority of circumstances it will be abundantly clear and not in dispute. In certain circumstances, as is already the case with marriage, it might be necessary to examine the circumstances in detail.

Your problem is not with the piece of paper, but who's allowed to sign it.

Thank you for telling me what I think. I value this as much as the advice I received earlier in the thread on what I "should" do.

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage is an attempt by society to reward certain behaviour, whether you or I like it or not that sexual partnership IS what marriage is intended to cover.

You must also have missed my post where I said I was quite happy to extend the scope to include non-sexual couples, as that demonstrates that your conclusion is wrong.

Good so now roommates need divorces as well. The Divorce Lawyers better not pick this up, you will increase their business by an astronomical ammount.



Do you really think that society introduced marriage so people would fill in bits of paper? Or, just possibly, was it to reward certain behaviours? Do you really think the paperwork is more important than the reality?

What evidence do you have on the introduction of marriage? Look marriage started as a method of transfering the ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. There was property involved as well. Such property transactions require paperwork in a modern soceity so why shouldn't all these other new ideas about what marriage should be?



Why do you continue with your assertion that I oppose paperwork when I have told you this is untrue? It is almost as if you wish to set up a strawman to attack.

You are forcing your values on others. This is by concidering anyone in a given situation to be married regardless of their own desire. You are willing to force others who can not make decisions for themselves to abide by your ideas of who should make decisions for them.

If you can only listen to the patient to find out their wishes, then I fail to see whether it matters if they are married, living together, single or cohabiting with a hamster called Nigel. i.e no impact from extending the availability of the rights of marriage in this situation. What was your point?

Because the only other thing I can pay attention to is properly authorised paperwork. Stateing and acting a certain way does not cut it, they need to have filled out the forms.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Good so now roommates need divorces as well. The Divorce Lawyers better not pick this up, you will increase their business by an astronomical ammount.

Need any more straw? None of what you say is remotely supported by the posts you are pretending to reply to.

What evidence do you have on the introduction of marriage? Look marriage started as a method of transfering the ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. There was property involved as well. Such property transactions require paperwork in a modern soceity so why shouldn't all these other new ideas about what marriage should be?

How about you answer the question instead - "Do you really think that society introduced marriage so people would fill in bits of paper? Or, just possibly, was it to reward certain behaviours? Do you really think the paperwork is more important than the reality?"

You are forcing your values on others.

I am not forcing anything on anyone.

This is by concidering anyone in a given situation to be married regardless of their own desire. You are willing to force others who can not make decisions for themselves to abide by your ideas of who should make decisions for them.

Society treats people according to their actions all the time, irrespective of the paperwork. If you sign a bit of paper saying "I am innocent of robbery", then go out and commit a robbery, you get treated based on the action.

I am no more forcing others to abide by my ideas than you are forcing them to abide by yours. My argument is based on what they do, yours on their paperwork skills.

Because the only other thing I can pay attention to is properly authorised paperwork. Stateing and acting a certain way does not cut it, they need to have filled out the forms.

So again, no change here. Properly authorised paperwork will still exist, no matter how hard you try and ignore the point. If your patient does not have a DNR, you treat them - exactly the same as you do now.

Making your arguments based on a strawman position that I want to outlaw paperwork is not leading to a useful discussion - any chance you could drop it and deal with what I actually propose?

[tsg]

No - if society decides that certain behaviours bring certain results, then you don't get an opt out. Bit like when you have children really - you don't get to opt out of paying support for them just because you aren't named on the birth certificate.

You're not serious, right? You want the government or some other party to decide whether or not two people are married without asking them if they even want to be? Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, it is completely ludicrous and, in fact, completely at odds with this statement you made just yesterday:

No, I don't see why a third party (government) should grant rights to individuals simply because they have entered into a contract with each other which the government is not a party to.

So, which is it?

Eliminate? No. Reduce and make more difficult? Yes.

I don't see how. Eliminate the paper and the definition and/or qualifications stay. If the government doesn't consider two men a marriage, it still won't consider them a marriage with or without the paper. Gays aren't being discriminated against by some bureaucratic error that makes them technically unable to marry. They are being discriminated against because the small-minded individuals that make up the majority don't want them to. Getting rid of marriage licenses isn't going to solve that problem, or even reduce it in the slightest.

There is no need - in the vast majority of circumstances it will be abundantly clear and not in dispute. In certain circumstances, as is already the case with marriage, it might be necessary to examine the circumstances in detail.

So you see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions known to avoid complications later? We may as well throw out all of contract law for the very same reasons.

Thank you for telling me what I think.

I'm just calling it like I see it. If you dispute it, say so. But that's the best I can make of your position based on the statements you have made.

I value this as much as the advice I received earlier in the thread on what I "should" do.

How much you value it concerns me not in the least.

[ponderingturtle]

Need any more straw? None of what you say is remotely supported by the posts you are pretending to reply to.

You have been in favor of divorce being used in relationships asided from marriage. And been so lax in defining what relationships you think should get all the protections of marriage(such as dividing property in divorce) thatI have no idea what you think should work.

You want to expand marriage to include lots of people irregardless of their desires(as if they desired marriage they could get married). So why shouldn't divorce go with it?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There is one problem with that argument (at least for us Canadians).

Thanks to our flawed charter of rights, Canadians do not have property rights. While we do have freedom of religion, the re-definition of marriage did not contain any explicit protection for churches not willing to marry gay couples.
This means that there is a danger that a gay couple will sue a religious congregation that refused to allow its church to be used for the ceremony, and since churches do serve a semi-public function they could be forced to perform the ceremony. (Remember, while we do have freedom of religion, we also have the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, when 2 rights are in conflict, one of them will have to fall.)

In fact, prior to the vote which legalized same sex marriage in Canada, several Liberal MPs threatened to vote against the bill because of just that risk. (The were demanding an addition to the bill which would say "no church will be forced to perform marriages".

There are a couple of legal precidents (although they are weak)... a catholic school was successfully sued by a homosexual student who was refused the right to bring his boyfriend to the prom. (Admittedly, this isn't a perfect precident since the school was partially funded by government dollars). And, a lesbian couple sued a "Knights of Columbus" hall for not allowing them to hold their wedding reception there. (Again, this isn't a perfect precident, since there were also contract issues.)

In Canda, prior to the legalization of same sex marriage, no church was required (or could be forced) to marry a hetrosexual couple. You asked the church and they refused or accepted depending on their own criteria. The situation is unchanged today.

[Segnosaur]

In Canda, prior to the legalization of same sex marriage, no church was required (or could be forced) to marry a hetrosexual couple. You asked the church and they refused or accepted depending on their own criteria. The situation is unchanged today.

First of all, although I didn't make it perfectly clear, there is more than just the church... there are varous halls that may be owned by religious or other groups that could be used for receptions that might also be affected.

Secondly, can you cite any legal precident? After all, saying that "no church could be forced..." doesn't really mean much unless someone has actually bothered to bring an actual legal challenge.

Lastly, what exactly are "their own criteria"? Criteria that have nothing to do with the charter of rights (such as "must be a member of the church", "must pay in cash", etc.) will remain unchanged, but criteria that ARE impacted by the charter (for example, "We'll only marry peopleof a certain race") MIGHT get overturned. We do need to wait for a proper legal precedent before we decide whether churches have autonomy in this matter.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

First of all, although I didn't make it perfectly clear, there is more than just the church... there are varous halls that may be owned by religious or other groups that could be used for receptions that might also be affected.

If the hall (or whatever) is a secular institution then nothing has changed. If they used to say (implicitly, if not explicitly) we don't rent to homosexuals, how is that any different than saying we don't rent to two homosexuals. (I suppose there may be a very small subset of people in the world who "approve" of homosexuality but not homosexual marriage.) Current law says they can't discriminate on the basis of sexual "preference". Nothing has changed.

Secondly, can you cite any legal precident? After all, saying that "no church could be forced..." doesn't really mean much unless someone has actually bothered to bring an actual legal challenge.

No I can't site a precident. They may well exist but I am neither a lawyer nor interterested in spending the time to do the research. I can speculate that any such suit would be laughed out of court based on the general attitude to such foolishness by Canadian judges. Let me know if and when it happens.

Lastly, what exactly are "their own criteria"? Criteria that have nothing to do with the charter of rights (such as "must be a member of the church", "must pay in cash", etc.) will remain unchanged, but criteria that ARE impacted by the charter (for example, "We'll only marry peopleof a certain race") MIGHT get overturned. We do need to wait for a proper legal precedent before we decide whether churches have autonomy in this matter.

Why would anyone try and force a church to marry them? You cannot legislate a person's beliefs. If a church says, "we don't believe that X is right, so you can't join our church", who is to argue with them? If they go on to say, "you must be a member of our church to get married here", that's the end of it.

[Beerina]

First of all, although I didn't make it perfectly clear, there is more than just the church... there are varous halls that may be owned by religious or other groups that could be used for receptions that might also be affected.

Secondly, can you cite any legal precident? After all, saying that "no church could be forced..." doesn't really mean much unless someone has actually bothered to bring an actual legal challenge.

Presumably Canadian law is so powerful it can force God to exist, and then, having done that, force Him to accept gay marriages.

And thus, government's adoption of religous functions is complete. Competition is, per standard socalist rules, outlawed, in favor of the righteous People's Way.

[Segnosaur]

If the hall (or whatever) is a secular institution then nothing has changed.

We're talking about religous buildings here. Like the Knights of Columbus halls.

If they used to say (implicitly, if not explicitly) we don't rent to homosexuals, how is that any different than saying we don't rent to two homosexuals.
(I suppose there may be a very small subset of people in the world who "approve" of homosexuality but not homosexual marriage.) Current law says they can't discriminate on the basis of sexual "preference". Nothing has changed.

Not sure what exactly your point is. From the sounds of it, you are now saying (because they can't discriminate) then indeed they WILL be forced to rent churches and reception halls for homosexual marriages, since they "can't discriminate".


No I can't site a precident. They may well exist but I am neither a lawyer nor interterested in spending the time to do the research.

In that case, you cannot actually claim that the situation has changed. In fact, you can't even say what the situation USED to be. At most you can state an uninformed opinion. At least I managed to cite a few examples (imperfect as they were) to support my opinions.

I can speculate that any such suit would be laughed out of court based on the general attitude to such foolishness by Canadian judges.

Speculate all you want, but the courts do regularly make rulings that seem out of touch with common sense. (Hot McDonald's coffee anyone?)

I'm reminded of a court case I heard about where an owner of a downtown office building that was was vacant (pending rennovations) found that some "homeless" people had moved in and started wrecking the place. (I put "homeless" in quotes since these were people who seemed to be homeless by choice, not by circumstance). He tried to take them to court over the damages, but it was determined that even though he owned the building, because he wasn't using it at the moment the homeless people could move in.

All you would need is one judge, when presented with a case of homosexuals wanting to use a church or reception hall, to decide that the building serves a public function and thus cannot discriminate.

And, of course, not only do you have to worry about judges, you also have to worry about human rights tribunals, where decisions are made by people who may have no formal legal training (and even less common sense than judges).



Why would anyone try and force a church to marry them?

Why would a homosexual go to a catholic school (a religion that has a pretty clear stance on homosexuality) and then try to bring their 'date' to the prom?

I can think of a few reasons why someone would try to force a church to marry them.... as a publicity stunt or way to embarrass the church (there ARE people who do like to cause problems just for the sake of causing problems), pragmatism (the church or religious building may be the only one large enough or in the proper location), or good old fashioned romance (hey, even homosexuals can want a church wedding...)


If they go on to say, "you must be a member of our church to get married here", that's the end of it.

First of all, it is possible for someone to be homosexual and a member of the church, even if the church itself does not condone (and would not allow) gay marriages. I don't know why a homosexual would WANT to be a member of that church, but then I don't know why a homosexual would want to go to a catholic school.

Secondly, saying "you must be a member to get married here" would only work if you told that to EVERYONE. If you told that to a gay couple, but told a hetero couple "Sure, you can marry here even if you're not a member", then that is discrimination.

[Segnosaur]

Presumably Canadian law is so powerful it can force God to exist, and then, having done that, force Him to accept gay marriages.


Well, our constitution DOES start out with a recognition of god's supremecy.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You have been in favor of divorce being used in relationships asided from marriage. And been so lax in defining what relationships you think should get all the protections of marriage(such as dividing property in divorce) thatI have no idea what you think should work.

You want to expand marriage to include lots of people irregardless of their desires(as if they desired marriage they could get married). So why shouldn't divorce go with it?

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You're not serious, right? You want the government or some other party to decide whether or not two people are married without asking them if they even want to be? Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, it is completely ludicrous and, in fact, completely at odds with this statement you made just yesterday:

So, which is it?

I want the government to treat people on the basis of the reality of their actions, not what paperwork they have filled in. Their is no conflict between the two statements you refer to.

In other words exactly what already happens in immigration issues related to marriage (the piece of paper is NOT enough, the actions are conclusive) and shadow directorships (if you act like a director, you get treated like one whether the paperwork is filled in or not).

So you see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions known to avoid complications later? We may as well throw out all of contract law for the very same reasons.

More strawman nonsense that I have advocated the abolition of paperwork or contracts. Unless of course you can point to where I have said I see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions clear, or that people should not be allowed to do so.

I won't hold my breath.

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

How do you tell room mates from serious couples when they have divorce proceedings.

And non sexual marriages would not be divorced as they would not qualify for the benefits of marriage, so they don't rate divorce. But as you are abolishing formal marriage, how can you tell the difference between roommates who don't sleep together and a married couple who does not sleep together?

[ponderingturtle]

I want the government to treat people on the basis of the reality of their actions, not what paperwork they have filled in. Their is no conflict between the two statements you refer to.

Yep, regardless of if they want it. So be careful moving in with that new fling, or you could end up in divorce court.


More strawman nonsense that I have advocated the abolition of paperwork or contracts. Unless of course you can point to where I have said I see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions clear, or that people should not be allowed to do so.

I won't hold my breath.
What strawmen about abolishing paperwork, that is exactly what you are proposing for marriage.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

So how do you tell room mates from a couple that can access divorce? To what extent of behaviors are claimed or could be?

Why do you want to see couples who don't get married about to redistribute assets through a divorce?

Marriage works as a legal principle because it grants rights and legal status's to those who want them. In that regard I am for broadening who can get married, but am also in favor of limiting its effects to those who actually publicly state that they want these effects though getting married.

You just assume that who ever someone is living with is who they want to make decisions if they are incapacitated.

Also you are getting rid of formal marriages, so why should someone who is no longer in a sexual relationship be anything other than a roommate, regardless of past relations? So if you leave your long term partner who you have not had a sexual relationship with in years, why should they be entitled to a divorce and any redistribution of property?

And you are certainly for expandeing rights of marriage to non sexual relationships, you brought it up with the idea of sisters living together for years.

You are not at all consistent with how you think these things should be treated.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We're talking about religous buildings here. Like the Knights of Columbus halls.

Not sure what exactly your point is. From the sounds of it, you are now saying (because they can't discriminate) then indeed they WILL be forced to rent churches and reception halls for homosexual marriages, since they "can't discriminate".

In that case, you cannot actually claim that the situation has changed. In fact, you can't even say what the situation USED to be. At most you can state an uninformed opinion. At least I managed to cite a few examples (imperfect as they were) to support my opinions.


The situation is not changed by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If you rent your space to the public, you have to follow the law.

This issue is whether a church can be forced to marry a couple who does not have the same beliefs as the church. Churches have always had the right in Canada to decide what they want to do in their church as the courts accept that church CANON law applies to activities within the church. See: Donoghue v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa, 2007 at:
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22roman+catholic+church%22&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onscdc/doc/2007/2007canlii4857/2007canlii4857.html
for a very recent example.

Speculate all you want, but the courts do regularly make rulings that seem out of touch with common sense. (Hot McDonald's coffee anyone?)

This is not a Canadian precident and, if you read up on the case, you will find that the issue is not the simple one you seem to think it is.

I'm reminded of a court case I heard about where an owner of a downtown office building that was was vacant (pending rennovations) found that some "homeless" people had moved in and started wrecking the place. (I put "homeless" in quotes since these were people who seemed to be homeless by choice, not by circumstance). He tried to take them to court over the damages, but it was determined that even though he owned the building, because he wasn't using it at the moment the homeless people could move in.

Canadian court?

All you would need is one judge, when presented with a case of homosexuals wanting to use a church or reception hall, to decide that the building serves a public function and thus cannot discriminate.

And if it was a reception hall, even without the legalization of same-sex marriage, he would be right. If it was a church, he would be wrong because he should have recognized church canon law and be overturned on appeal.

And, of course, not only do you have to worry about judges, you also have to worry about human rights tribunals, where decisions are made by people who may have no formal legal training (and even less common sense than judges).

I don't "worry" about judges or human rights tribunals. They are what keep our society free and open. I guess you don't approve of juries either?

Why would a homosexual go to a catholic school (a religion that has a pretty clear stance on homosexuality) and then try to bring their 'date' to the prom?


A school is not a church.

I can think of a few reasons why someone would try to force a church to marry them.... as a publicity stunt or way to embarrass the church (there ARE people who do like to cause problems just for the sake of causing problems), pragmatism (the church or religious building may be the only one large enough or in the proper location), or good old fashioned romance (hey, even homosexuals can want a church wedding...)

There is no way a church can be forced to do anything. Their beliefs are their beliefs as expressed in their canon laws and they can act on them as long as they don't violate criminal law.

First of all, it is possible for someone to be homosexual and a member of the church, even if the church itself does not condone (and would not allow) gay marriages. I don't know why a homosexual would WANT to be a member of that church, but then I don't know why a homosexual would want to go to a catholic school.

If the church does not condone homosexuality they they can throw the homosexuals out as unbelievers in their religion.

Secondly, saying "you must be a member to get married here" would only work if you told that to EVERYONE. If you told that to a gay couple, but told a hetero couple "Sure, you can marry here even if you're not a member", then that is discrimination.

So they tell it to everyone. The Roman Catholic Church has criteria for marriages one of which is that you: "Must be of opposite sex as your partner". Religions are allowed to discriminate.

If you want to do your own research into Canadian legal precidents you can search http://canlii.org/. Let me know if you find anything. This is the end of the discussion for me.

[pgwenthold]

I was going to ask, would a Catholic Church in Canada be forced to marry two divorced catholics?

Many (most?) Catholic churches in the US will not marry divorced Catholics, unless they have bought the annullment.

From what Gord says (Gord, are you a baseball fan, BTW?), Canadian Catholic Churches would be allowed to refuse to marry divorcees.

[ponderingturtle]

Please point out where I have ever suggested that roommates would be married or that non sexual marriages would be automatically divorced, both of which you have claimed.

Until you do or admit that you made these up, I have no interest in dealing with any more of your straw constructions.

Some however will not (for example sisters). What possible benefit is there to society in forcing the surviving person to sell the home they lived in together, because she shared it with her sister not her husband or her same sex partner?

So why should sisters be able to get rights that other people not in sexual relationships should get?

And if they can get that right, why shouldn't other rights of mariage be open to them, such as court redistrobution of property upon seperation?

[tsg]

I want the government to treat people on the basis of the reality of their actions, not what paperwork they have filled in.

Why?

More strawman nonsense that I have advocated the abolition of paperwork or contracts. Unless of course you can point to where I have said I see no benefit in allowing people to make their intentions clear, or that people should not be allowed to do so.

It was a question. That's what the "?" means. Do you or do you not see any benefit for two people making their intentions known in order to avoid complications later?

[Segnosaur]

The situation is not changed by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If you rent your space to the public, you have to follow the law.

But part of the issue is that church property (either the church itself, or reception halls that they happen to own) are rented "to the public". The example I pointed out earlier (the gay couple who wanted to rent the catholic-based Knights of Columbus hall) is an example. The hall itself is church property. The question is, should the religious organization who owns the property be forced to rent to the gay couple.

This issue is whether a church can be forced to marry a couple who does not have the same beliefs as the church. Churches have always had the right in Canada to decide what they want to do in their church as the courts accept that church CANON law applies to activities within the church.

Right now, you're CLAIMING that churches can do what they want... but right now, that is ONLY a claim. Remember though, when we're dealing with marriage and/or the use of church space, we start dealing with activities that affect the government and/or general public. The government cannot say "you must accept gay marriage", but they may be able to say "since you run a building that is open to the public, you have to let them use it for their ceremonies".

I am not saying that the courts will automatically force gay weddings at the local catholic church. But, at this point we can't rule that out. It would have been very easy for the government to simply add a little extra to the bill to clarify the situation.


See: Donoghue v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa, 2007 at:
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22roman+catholic+church%22&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onscdc/doc/2007/2007canlii4857/2007canlii4857.html
for a very recent example.

Not exactly a very good example, since:
- The issue seemed to be dismissed because it was a financial issue
- A religious organization closing its church is not discriminating against any particular race or sexual orientation


This is not a Canadian precident and, if you read up on the case, you will find that the issue is not the simple one you seem to think it is.

Actually, I have read up on it a while ago, and yes, indeed it is that simple:
- Many home coffee makers make coffee just as hot as the stuff served at McDonalds
- A similar case was thrown out in Britian (i.e. they got the situation right) after experts showed that even if the temperature of the coffee was reduced (to the temperature recommended by the defence), the same amount of burning would have happened.

And yes, it was an American court case. But, do we have a reason to believe our court system is automatically better than the U.S.? Are our judges super genetically modified hybrids that can make no wrong decisions?

Canadian court?

Yes, ineed,.



All you would need is one judge, when presented with a case of homosexuals wanting to use a church or reception hall, to decide that the building serves a public function and thus cannot discriminate.
And if it was a reception hall, even without the legalization of same-sex marriage, he would be right. If it was a church, he would be wrong because he should have recognized church canon law and be overturned on appeal.

Reception halls and similar property are often owned by churches and serve religous purposes (even if they don't have a cross on the roof and stain glass windows.) Do you think relgious groups should be forced to rent their property for those purposes just because its not used Sunday morning worship (but is used every other day?)

As for the church itself... it IS just a building. If the Catholics can be forced to rent the "St. Idiots Catholic Hall", why won't they be forced to rent out the church too? They're not being forced to preach acceptance of gay marriage, only let their property be used.

I don't "worry" about judges or human rights tribunals. They are what keep our society free and open. I guess you don't approve of juries either?

I don't "worry" about judges (ok, bad wording on my part). I worry about bad decisions by those judges. (And by bad, I mean decisions that seem to make no common sense.) I'd rather laws be made as clear as possible in order to prevent judges from 'interpreting' what they think the law should say or do. The government had a chance to do that when they passed the law allowing gay marriage but for some reason decided not to do it.

I do have concerns about human rights tribunals. I'd prefer issues to be decided by people with better training (i.e. through the courts), which often doesn't happen with such tribunals.


A school is not a church.

No, but it was a catholic school, which was designated to teach catholic principles to its students. Some might consider the ability to receive a religious education (and for a church to provide such an education consistent with its beliefs) as a significant part of the freedom of religion.


There is no way a church can be forced to do anythin