Should same sex marriage be allowed. It may be law soon in Canada.

B.C. appeal court overturns supreme court decision banning same sex marriage

AMY CARMICHAEL
Canadian Press


VANCOUVER (CP) - Governments should change with the times and recognize gay marriage, the B.C. Appeal Court said Thursday when it joined two other provinces in clearing the way for same sex unions.

The province's highest court overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. In its decision the court gave the federal government until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon hasn't decided whether to appeal the B.C. judgment, he said Thursday outside the Commons.

"It's an important social issue for Canada," Cauchon said. "When you look at the situation in Canada, people are divided."

He said he would first study the "very important" ruling along with related recommendations expected soon from the Commons all-party justice committee. Its members recently toured Canada, gathering opinions for and against same-sex unions.

Cauchon has always said he appealed a similar Ontario judgment because courts across Canada are also split on same-sex marriage.

He now concedes that the Ontario, Quebec and B.C. judgments "are going exactly in the very same direction. So I have to take that into consideration as well."

The panel of three judges with the B.C. appeal court wrote that they would reformulate the law, making it read "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," as opposed to the union of man and woman.

A Quebec court has also backed same-sex marriage rights and asked Ottawa to re-examine marriage laws.

A lawyer for the couples, Joe Arvay, said the B.C. decision went farther than some others that also called on parliament to reopen the debate by July 12, 2004.

"The only reason for the suspension until 2004 is to allow parliament, the federal government, the provincial government, to enact whatever sort of ancillary or consequential legislation they need to, to give effect to the judgment."

Arvay said the B.C. decision applies across the country, because the law it ruled unconstitutional is federal common-law.

His clients were ecstatic.

"I can't believe how happy I am about this ruling," said Joy Masuhara. "For me personally, it means I can do what I've wanted to do for the past 10 years, which is marry my partner."

"Marriage as an institution has been very symbolic in terms of recognizing partnerships. We need to have that. I know most Canadians are wanting this to happen as well."

Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled against same-sex marriages, finding that "marriage" can refer only to the union of couples of the opposite sex.

The judge also found that although the common-law prohibition of same-sex marriages violates Section 15 of the Charter, it was a legally justifiable limit under Section 1.

The ruling that was overturned Thursday had dismissed a petition by the eight couples seeking a declaration that the issuer of marriage licences under Section 31 of the Marriage Act is permitted to issue licences to same-sex couples.

In an explanation for their decision, the appeal judges wrote "that the common law definition of marriage contravenes the Charter and it cannot be justified in contemporary Canadian society."

Courts, they said, have not given enough consideration to the extent to which society's views on gay and lesbians have changed.

Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the decision and that the issue should be debated in government.

He said the judges haven't taken into consideration the benefits for society which marriage provides.

"Marriage is a social institution, institutions are not about rights, they're about serving society, and marriage does a very good job of that," Martens said outside the court.

"No other relationship provides the unique benefits that marriage does for kids, for the parents themselves and for people who aren't married."

Since the decriminalization of homosexual relationships in Canada in 1969, there has been a steady expansion of the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexuals reflected in human rights legislation.

"These developments have substantial public support, although the matter remains controversial," the appeal court said. "This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment."

The couples who challenged the law are Murray Warren and Peter Cook, Elizabeth and Dawn Barbeau, Melinda Roy and Tanya Chambers, Robin Roberts and Diana Denny, Jane Hamilton and Masuhara, Tess Healy and Wendy Young, Shane McCloskey and David Shortt, and Bob Peacock and Lloyd Thornhill.

Some of the couples have lived together for 30 years and have children.

Last week the federal government began its challenge to a controversial lower court ruling in Ontario that said Canadian law is unconstitutional because it recognizes only opposite-sex unions.

Common law defines marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" - a violation of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the divisional court said.

At the risk of sounding intolerant: No.

I agree that same sex couples, as well as hetero couples living together, should be able to do things such as put their partner on their health insurance coverage, etc, and have some sort of legal protection to their partership. But the term and institution of marriage is between a man and a woman. Call it something different, please.

If they could make the laws that committed couples - no matter what sex - could have the benefits that married couples do, such as insurance and parental rights, then there wouldn't be a need for the "marriage" thing. That's not how governments work, though. For legal purposes I think it should be allowed.

A lot of European countries allow same-sex marriages for legal reasons now, but for the most part they're called "registered partnerships" or the like. I don't have any trouble accepting the idea. If you have a close, live-in relationship with someone of the same gender for years, you should be able to obtain the same insurance, social security, death benefits, etc. as a heterosexual couple.

Canada has allowed for some years now the same privledges under the law to same sex partners as to straight partners (eg gov't benefits), but they want the right to recognized as a legal wedded union. Their arguement is that they have the same committment to their partner as do hetrosexual people do.

What's the matter, it's 2 people, there have been gays and lesbians for centuries! It was even encouraged at one point, and anyone who's taken history in HS should know that!

Seeing as how I'm bisexual, it would be awefully hypocrtical of me to say anything less!

I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. One of my very best friends is bi-sexual and I've never seen her happier than she is now, living with her girlfriend. If it makes them happy, who's it going to hurt for them to get married?

Just my opinion, nothing against anyone that doesn't agree. :)

A lot of churches in the U.S. are dead set against same sex marriages. However, our government is suppose to keep church and state separate so I don't know how the government can continue to deny the marriage of people of the same sex in a civil ceremony.

Here in Florida, the laws do not favor gays. Two of my very dear friends, a lesbian couple, have been together for over 14 years. Last year they had a baby. It's tough for them, as here, the non-biological parent cannot legally adopt their child, nor ne named the legal guardian. They have provided for the worst case scenario the best that they can, but I hope that it never comes to that.

I think same sex "marriages" are wrong. I do not think gays should have special rights. I do not think laws should be changed to protect or accommodate them. I don't care what someone does behind closed doors, but I do not understand why they have to tell the world about it. You don't hear straight people having parades chanting "I'm straight, it's great, get used to it."

I think that same sex marriages are a good thing. We already have a problem with over-population as it is. Let them get married if they choose to. They will not be able to pro-create.
The only down-side to it as I see is that homo-sexuality seems to be growing in "populairty" as if it were a fad or something. With the growing acceptance of it and same sex marriage laws being passed, is it the "cool" thing to do in some cases???
I don't know, I am rambling on...

Ginger

Originally posted by krazy kat2
I think same sex "marriages" are wrong. I do not think gays should have special rights. I do not think laws should be changed to protect or accommodate them. I don't care what someone does behind closed doors, but I do not understand why they have to tell the world about it. You don't hear straight people having parades chanting "I'm straight, it's great, get used to it."

I agree with you 100%, krazy kat2!!!

Originally posted by krazy kat2
.......but I do not understand why they have to tell the world about it. You don't hear straight people having parades chanting "I'm straight, it's great, get used to it."

The reason 'straight' people are not having parades chanting their sexual preferences is because they have never been discriminated against or had to defend their sexual orientation to a majority. 'Straight' relationships have never had to worry about being the brunt of someone else's hostility or disgust. On the other hand, same sex relationships are tested by society on a daily basis.

Also, as everyone is an individual with their own personalities, not 'every' gay/lesbian person is shouting their sexuality to the world. It's just too easy to put everyone of a certain orientation into a group and then state they are all 'xyz'.

I have grown up around the gay/lesbian community and have family members who are in same sex relationships. I don't see any problem with government support or recognizing their status. Just because they cannot reproduce shouldn't be a deciding factor on whether they are in a 'legal' relationship.

It's time that government laws get up to speed with the needs and wants of the current population, and not maintain laws that were influenced by a population from centuries past.

I agree that homosexuals shouldn't get any special treatment. I don't think they should be given minority status or any such nonsense. I don't like it when they flaunt it like Ellen Degeneres has done, but then again I don't like it when straight couples flaunt it either. I love Angelina Jolie, but her and Billy Bob made me sick being all over each other all the time! :nausea:

I do think they should be given equal status though. By not allowing them the legal status of being "married" (whatever language you want to use is fine with me, get rid of the word "marriage" so it doesn't interfere with the Biblical idea of the institution), that is discriminating against them, IMO.

A couple in love should be able to get married. Maybe I'm just a romantic, but I think the idea of marriage is so beautiful and I wouldn't want to have a role in keeping that from anybody.

I formed my opinion from having 3 of my 6 immediate family members that are gay. I am not homophobic, I just don't think they should get special treatment.

As human beings with freedom of speech, I think they can call themselves married if they want.

In my country same-sex couples can now get their relationship "registered", which is pretty much the same as getting married without the church part. I think this is wonderful, and the law was long overdue, even though I think it is still too small a step, as I don't see why gay couples couldn't get married just like anyone else and call it that. I do not think that this is giving gay people 'special' treatment, it is one step on the way to treating everyone the same, no matter what their sex, sexual "preference", or race etc.

Tybalt, I disagree that "everyone will still see the cat". I, for one, will see and do see gay people as "married" -- and there are plenty of others like me. If your perception is that it is a mockery, then it is ... for you. The gay and lesbian people I know who have been married for years and years, raising children, being faithful members of their churches, certainly are not mocking a sacred institution -- they fully believe in the sacred institution ... just like you.

Originally posted by Coco Maui
I think that same sex marriages are a good thing. We already have a problem with over-population as it is. Let them get married if they choose to. They will not be able to pro-create.


Well, the non-procreate thing is not necessarily the case, as I have previously posted. I know 2 same-sex couples who are having children through artificial insemination. One couple has a year-old son, and the other has a baby due in June.

I am so not sure how I feel about this anymore. The issue gets clouded for me when it no longer involves faceless, nameless people, but individuals who I know and respect. Through work, I see soooo many children who are neglected and abused that any child in a home where he is loved and cared for beats being one of those. I will say that since many feel so strongly about this issue, I am not certain that a child in a same-sex union won't suffer from the slings and arrows of others, so is that really fair to the child to subject him to what could be a lot of trauma? I do know it is not a choice that I would make personally, if I were in that situation. It's quite thought provoking that the advances we have made in medical technology have created some of these issues to begin with. To me there is just too much tampering with nature in the field of childbearing to begin with.

There is a difference between same sex marriages, which is ok with me, and then having special rights. That's just wrong, no one should have special rights above others including gays or lesbians.
Same sex marraige is just asking for the right to be able to be married in the eyes of the law, so that they are EQUAL with everyone else in the world.
As it is, gays/lesbians do not have the same rights that everyone else does, and that makes me said, just the same as when women couldn't vote, or black people were used for slavery. It's the same thing.

Everyone has equal rights under the law. Gays just do not have special rights, and that is as it should be. Changing any laws would be granting special rights.

krazy kat: But gays and lesbians can't get married by law everywhere. They are humans too, how is that equal? :confused:

I think gay people have the right to get married and have kids just like everyone else. No one can take that away from them - it's a question of the state recognizing a right.

Many gay couples live in a marriage type relationship - even if not made official. I can say cat when I see one ;) And as for children - I think children need a good loving stable family. Whether gay or hetero doesn't really matter to me.

Originally posted by jcat
A lot of European countries allow same-sex marriages for legal reasons now, <snip>

No they don't. ;)
AFAIK, my country, is the only country in the world that allows an official same-sex marriage.

In all other countries a "registered partnership" is as far as it goes.

In other posts I read about "changing the law" in order to allow same-sex marriages.
The funny thing is, the law did not have to be changed in the Netherlands.
Someone had found out that in our laws regarding marriage, it was never specifically stated that a marriage could only be between a man and a woman.
To make a long story short, a test case was started and the judge had to agree that, possible moral objections set aside, there was no *legal* objection against two men or two women getting married.

After this test case, the gouvernment basically was left with two options.
1. Change the law so that same-sex marriage were forbidden
2. Adjust the existing laws so that it would overcome the opponents' main objections.

At that time we had a socialist/liberal gouvernment that was in favour of option 2.
Mainly because adjusting the law would be far easier than changing it, but also because there was not that much objection from society other than from some orthodox religious groups.

Where to start?


I know a lot of excellent people who are 'gay' or whatever you want to call it. If they were to ever get married I'd cheer them on. Marriage is a sacred union between TWO people who love and adore another. That is my opinion. Man or woman it matters not.


As for 'gay' people having children together. Again, as long as the child is being brought into a loving family where they will be well taken care of I see NO problem with it. Every person in this world is entitled to happiness, and if that is what will make them happy then that is what they should do. Them getting married and raising a family isn't hurting anyone.



My 2 cents..

Wait a minute Krazy, if everyone is always equal under the law, then women must be getting special priviliges by being able to vote! And those darn uppity negroes....

I'm sorry, but everyone IS NOT "equal under the law." It just doesn't work that way in real life, and that's why laws are always changing! I'm not going to say if I'm pro or con on this particular issue, but your arguement that they're getting special privilidges doesn't wash as a simple statement. Just explain to me how being able to do something that others do makes them "special", because I can't think how?

I dont think gay people should be allowed to have children or adopt them. It's just not natural to have 2 daddies or 2 mommies. I mean think about how people will react to that kid... That kid will be made fun of, etc. And, if they chose to be gay, that is their choice, and by choosing that way, they forfeit the right.
And, no, they should not be given special rights, but unfortunately, they think they should be given them.

Um, there is scientific evidence that it isn't just a "choice" they make to be gay. That's how they are. Did you choose to be straight? Or was that just what you were attracted to?

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the many here who have said that a child in a LOVING home with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is much better off than being in a straight, abusive or neglectful home. Gays who choose to have children have to make a conscious decision, and it's not an easy choice. It's not an easy procedure. Guaranteed, you will never see an "oops" pregnancy in a gay couple. Doubt if you would ever see an unwanted child, and you also won't see any abortions. When they choose to have a child it is with great concern and thought. Because intolerant people who think it's "wrong" for them to be who they are will teach that to their children, and that's who will make fun the children from parents who jumped through hoops to have them.

It's not exactly "natural" for a kid to grow up in a single parent family or be orphaned.. and those kids often get teased mercilessly by unthinking children who haven't been taught tolerance for difference. How do we know that children raised by gay parents are unhappy and not well-cared for? And again, if everyone else has the right to do something, how does giving a section of the population the same right make them "special?" I may be very, very uncomfortable with this arguement, but the "anti-gay marriage" side needs a stronger arguement than what's been put forth until now.

u know..... i was just stating my opinion....... maybe i shouldnt have....... And, honestly, I dont know whether or not I believe in the statistics that some people are born gay, which IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT!

Let me tell you about a friend of mine, her name is Karen. Karen grew up in a horrible home with a father who abused her from an early age. At 17 Karen ran away from home and went to San Francisco to live in the gay community. She called herself Sammi and had a partner. They were together for 7 years before Sammi's partner suddenly went into a rage one night and beat Sammi so bad she landed in the hospital for two weeks.

When she got out, she was alone and she moved to another part of the community but she felt like she was never fully accepted. Finally at the age of 21 Sammi started taking means to change her sex legally. She went to counseling, started drug therapy, and went to Canada for the operations (she has had a total of 4) Her name is now David, she is married to a woman and they have an adopted 9 year old girl. Sometimes, when she visits, I slip and call her Karen, or Sammi, even though she looks like a guy, full beard and everything. She did all of this to gain acceptance, because society was so cruel to her she couldn't live her life. Does she tell Tamara about her past? I don't know and I really don't care. I just feel a deep sadness for her to be so gender confused and having to make such an extreme measure of change, just to be accepted. Her family now treats her as a bad toilet joke, and she has been ostracized from all of them. But her and Tammy are very happy together and she underwent hell during the recovery period for her surgeries. And Tamara is a happy, well-adjusted child, in the school band and other activities.

Just as a note on genetics, not all things that are biological are due to an inherited gene. Many disorders are linked to genes that have mutated, and happen quite frequently. And gay men and women are known to enter into straight marriages and have children. A biological explaination is possible. Maybe it's so, maybe not, but nothing has been proved either way. Too bad, because the whole "nature/nurture" thing complicates it...

I just agree with Lola about this then. Special rights indicates that they are getting something that the majority doesn't get. Having access to spousal insurance and "marriage" tax breaks - the legal side of things, is something that the majority does have. Depriving them of these legal rights may be the status quo, but that doesn't mean that granting them those rights is special treatment.

Just wanted to mention that there are "homosexual" pairings in the animal kingdom as well - specifically amoung the wolf and bird population. Do the animals "choose" their lifestyle, or is it biological?

Uh, Tybalt, we're not talking about butt-sniffing here. Homosexual sex has indeed been recorded in the wild. And even the dumbest wolf should know the difference between boy and girl before things got that far. I know that lovebirds sometimes pair up, I had a job where two of them in an aviary were "lesbian", and didn't quite understand why none of their eggs would hatch (I guess their parents didn't give them "the talk" :rolleyes: ) There's a known way to manipulate fruitfly genes so that the males ignore females and mate with other males (what about the females? the article never said...wouldn't that be an important part of the story?) None of that proves that homosexuality in humans is biological, but it's food for thought!

I just wanted to say that I believe your sexual orintation can be biological. We have had homosexuals for centuries if not more (sorry I'm so bad at these things.)

To note on what Hissy said. I've known quiet a few transvestites, transgenders and what kids like to call themselves these days "girly boys" because they can't accept the word transvestite.
It's really a sad thing honestly.
I mean if that's what they feel they need to do because society has treated them so horribly, or they are just really homosexuals and don't know how to outlit that properly yet, what have you. But it's still pittyful in some cases.

On the note of parenting, I never had a father, though my mother has been married to 2 men since my birth... I basically raised myself, granted for years I was pretty messed up, and still am a bit now. I consider myself and as does everyone else a great, and very strong person.
My daughter... I was single for much of it, but my own mother was around a lot, so in a way she was raised with a single mom and with 2 moms!
Granted now she lives with me and her daddy (my fiance), and she's just your average child, and VERY loved, and it would be the same had I chosen a female partner.

Here is a list of scientific findings about homosexuality. I can give the references to anyone who wants them.

1. Homosexuality is known to run in families.
2. Concordance for homosexuality is more common among monozygotic than dizygotic twins. (This means that in twins who are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual the other is likely to also be homosexual; whereas in nonidentical twins, if one twin is homosexual the other is not as likely to be homosexual.)
3. Homosexuality has been found to be associated with differential exposure to hormones before birth.
4. Some studies have found that the actual structure of the brain is different in homosexuals and heterosexuals.
5. The fact that homosexuals have a 39% greater chance of being non-right-handed than heterosexual suggests biological differences between the groups.

With that said, I can't find a reason why two people who are committed to each other and to the relationship shouldn't be allowed to marry.

And...research with children of homosexual couples finds that these children are just as psychologically happy and healthy as children raised in more traditional families. The key factor in psychological health is being raised by loving adults...the gender of these adults doesn't matter.

Alright. This is honestly what I think.


I have a religion that I follow, though I am not extremely religious. My religion actually says that same sex relationships is 'taboo'. However, I do not JUDGE those who are in same sex relationships. My religion also says not to 'judge' others, to love on another, and to treat others as I would like to be treated.



So regarding that, I look upon each person with respect and do not judge them in their actions. It is not my position to. IMO I find it hypocritical to judge 'gay' people for their same sex marriages/relationships adopting children. *My* religion says it isn't right to do it, so *I* don't do it (though if I were to one day find a woman that I truly loved as a life partner then I would go with what I feel was right, but thats another topic in itself).



What other people do and think is their own business and if it makes them happy and doesn't harm others then I don't see any kind of problem with it. Maybe I'm a strange person? Who knows. This is what I believe is right and I stick with it.


As far as same sex partners adopting children into a *loving* home (same sex partners can be just abusive as a heterosexual couple) I think it's great. If anything that is one more child out there that has been orphaned that is being given the chance to have a family. To have moms or dads hold them when they've fallen and skinned their knee. To help them learn to read and ride a bike. To take pictures of the beautiful look of delight come across their face when they open Christmas presents, to hug them when their first boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them, and to congratulate them and tell them how proud they are of them when they accomplish something they fought hard for.


ALL children deserve that, and when they get adopted it's their chance to have it.

Well said Cassandra! :bigthumb:

what can i say except all this makes me kinda sad. I´m a 22 year old male and have been with my boyfriend for four years. if we could be married we would be, but we cant so we arent. i´m not going to run about shouting im gay get used to it because likely as not i would end up with a fist in my face. one thing you ALL have to realise is that unless you are gay you will never know how it feels like to be reviled and ridiculed because of the way you express your love. LOVE. It is the most precious of gifts we have to give, who are we to discriminate. And if this love is to be extended to the raising of children, why not. Most physcologists will tell you that a loving, stable home is the key to a happy child.... it can be offered by a lone parent or two (REGARDLESS OF SEX).

I cannot help but feel that the majority of people who are strongly against same sex marriage feel that gay men are no more than sexual predators who could never make a go of a marriage and would probably try it on with an adopted child when it was old enough! It makes me sick to the stomach that in this day and age people can be sooo closed minded.


As someone else posted, being gay is not a new thing, so however much it may frighten you you have to try and be a little more open minded. We are not going anywhere and we are your equals

Just my thought.....

Ok, I dont know how to explain this, but I will try:
I dont agree with the whole same sex marriage, and dont think homosexuality is right. But, I also think that gays/lesbians dont deserved to be killed or beat up because of their preference. Does this make me close-minded? I dont think so. We all have our own opinions on this matter..... we're all adults. And, I guess it's true if you are not gay, you dont know what it feels like to be shut out by family or friends or strangers.

So, anyways..... that's just my thinking on this whole issue.:cool:

I think there is no difference. I guess people who are homophobic are just like those last remaining racist in the world. Just the way some people are.

I've never gotten beat up for who I am, but I did have to keep it underwraps for years, I basically just didn't talk about it. It wasn't widly accpeted where I grew up (a small town, small state really).
But I must say, now when people do find out, most of them freak out on me saying "oh I know such and such who is too, you should hook up etc" normally it's horny guys saying this. They just automatically think that any bi person is going to like every other one, it doesn't work that way, and it's annoying.

My only objection, to gays is some of those Gay Pride parades. I don't want to see half-naked HETEROSEXUALS simulating sex acts in public, either. Folks, its well and good to have a parade and have some fun but, let's maintain some standards of decency!

Seeing as marriage is a man-made institution, I see no reason why marriage between same-sex people can't be allowed. I mean, if heterosexual marriage was essentially invented, what's stopping us from "inventing" (that is, allowing) homosexual marriage?

It is my belief that love is love no matter what. If I happened to be more attracted to women and found a life-long partner, I'd be ecstatic; but I can't even imagine the hell I might experience from the intolerance of some folks. As it is, my spiritual views aren't made widely known for that very same reason. It is sad that we live in a world where we're not free to just be who we are without someone having something to say about it. *sigh*

Jenk

30 years ago my marriage would have been illegal too. I am "white" and my wife is "black", which was illegal in many states for quite a long time. We are both in our 40's (I'm nearly 50) and for both of us this is our first and only marriage. Inter-racial sex, while somewhat less taboo than homosexual sex, was considered unnatural.

We have no children and know many older married couples who have also never had children. Does the lack of children make our marriage void?

So how do you define someone's gender? Is it their genitals or their chromosomes? If someone is XY (male) but has a testestosterone resistance and so develops as a female is this person male? XXY individuals which develop as female but have certian male characteristics (such as higher muscle mass - these people are the primary reason for the sex test of Olympic athletes) are these individuals male or female?

The institution of male/female marriage is an artificial one though is also widely established in most societies. But then again, multiple partner marriage (mostly one male and multiple females) also has a long history, but this is not currently legal in most countries either.

Extension of company paid "family" benefits at work is, by it's very nature, descriminatory. The company is, in effect, saying "I will pay you more because you are married or have a family. I was single into my 30's. People with families received company paid health benefits worth well over $100/month which I would have been happy to receive in my paycheck.

As a married couple we pay much higher taxes than the combined amount we would pay as single individuals. Extending company benefits to couples that are not "legally" married provides them the advantages of marriage without the disadvantages (most notably, such as higher taxes.)

As for genetics, there is as much supporting evidence that child molestation is genetically determined as there is for a genetic basis for homosexuality. That said, there is quite a difference between the two, and homosexual relationships involving consent between two adults are really no one else's business in a free society. Among adult humans behavior is a choice, but religiously defined moral definitions of this behavior are outside the relm of a free society (with certian general exceptions - such as having sexual relations in public as an example.)

As for homosexual relationships in the animal world, particularly in wolves: "humping" is a dominance behavior and is not necessarily sexual. The claims of homosexual behavior in wolves (and other canids) (and most other wild animals in general) is usually politically motivated and not supported by careful scientific observation.

On the other hand, homosexual relationships have been part of the human experience for thousands of years, maybe longer. They have frequently been in or out of acceptance as society has changed.

For my opinion: I believe adult individuals should be allowed to commit to mutually agreeable relationships, whether male/male, male/female, female/female or multiple partner. I also believe adult individuals should be allowed to enter into mutual contract arrangements (such as buying a house or getting life insurance) which provides for certian survivor benefits without unreasonable restriction. I also believe employers (or the government) should not descriminate on the basis of marital status. Allowing employees to purchase at their own expense, at group rates, health/life/dental insurance is one thing, providing this coverage at company expense is descriminatory. Tax and government descrimination against married people should be eliminated.

George

Well stated George and Adam.

I struggle with what my feelings are. My religion states that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, as long as you don't "act" on those feeling. I find that hypocritical. I believe in the power f love, and if you are lucky enough to have found love, then you should be able to make a legal union. I feel that gays and lesbians should have all of the same rights as everyone else, including marriage if they wish.

hi again,

can i first say that george´s reply was one of the first ones that i have read here that seems well thought out and with some factual basis.

secondly.... and i´m not trying to stir things up..there are just a few things that irk:

the first is that when people say that they beleive that gay is ok but gay marriage does not make them closed minded ..... i´m sorry but if you dont beleive we have the same rights then, yes, you are closed minded. If that hurts your feelings then i´m sorry but you are still a homophobe.

secondly... i find it kinda patronising when people say its ok for gay marriage because we deserve a tax break too. Hello? we want to marry as a declaration of our committment to one another.

finally. as for all these people who seem to find it so very distasteful that some gay people go on "pride" marches. Imagine you are dating/in a relationship with someone yet if you were to hold hands/kiss in public you would attract verbal and physical abuse (including being asked/told to stop by police...for holding hands and offending public decency). Imagine then for a minute that you are also surrounded by hundreds of straight people everyday( read: normal people.... because most do)and these couples can hold hands at fairs, ¨kiss in the street and no one bats an eyelid. Imagine then that once a year or so there is a public gathering where you can walk and feel comfortable along with other peolpe like you, where you can kiss your boyfriend/girlfriend as much as you want. Imagine then, reading that some of these straight people have a problem with such a public display when they are free to do so whenever and wherever they please.

Adam

I have only just seen this thread now. I believe that ANY two people who love each other, regardless of their gender, should be allowed to get married. My sister is gay and if she ever decided to get married, she has my blessings, as long as the person she decides to marry, treats her well and with respect. I lived in a house with 4 other lesbians and so I see nothing wrong with it.
I dont see marriage in terms of gender - I see it in terms of LOVE. Thats what matters.

Well stated Adam and George.



All *humans* should have the right to express their love. Like it was said earlier "Who am I to discriminate?". I am not a lesbian, but if I was a lesbian I wouldn't want people to judge me on it. I have quite a few friends who are lesbian, and let me tell you.. you couldn't hope to meet a better person.



All *humans* are entitled to their own opinion as well. There are always going to be those who approve/disapprove of certain things. However, approve or not, respect should be shown to everyone until that person gives you a valid reason not to show respect. Being 'gay' or 'straight' does not validate a reason to show disrespect.


In any case, I wish all those who are in love and wish to marry the best of luck.. whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. :angel:

Re: Tybalt.

Mocking the term homophobe does not in any way belittle the sentiment behind what it stands for. I should have made that clearer, I appologise. There are many other words of choice that spring to mind, of which bigot is one. What is to gain by inferring you are not "afraid of homosexuals"? I think it says more about you than it does about homosexuals.


As for "pride" marches..... i think you will find that many minority groups who face persecution have held, and do hold, marches. So yes...wow... people do march based on the colour of their skin. A gay march is not neccessarily held to "honour" being gay but rather a means of drawing attention to the fact that there are a lot of us out there who the law discriminates against on many levels.

I, myself, have gone to pride marches in support of some of my friends. There is a warm and loving camaradie that I experienced there. I think it is horrible how the media shows what plays to the fears of the masses. IMO, the media is often what is holding back the progress toward equality among all people!

I fully support same-sex marriages. For me, marriage is the acknowledgement made by two people to society that their relationship is one that will last.

Earlier, someone posted that they had yet to meet a homosexual who remotely inspired fear. Well, let me share my view. My roommate in college, and best friend, was a lesbian and the co-president of our university's Lesbian and Gay Alliance. There were many times when we found anti-gay grafitti scribbled on our door (over 3 years). We also had negative and hurtful notes shoved under the door. You may say that you haven't met a homosexual who inspired fear, but we lived with the fear and hate.

As for Gay Pride parades just being about someone's sexual partner, it's so much more than that. Believe it or not, being gay is a lot more than what gender you have sex with. But, until people realize this, this fight will go on.

FWIW I fully support marriage between ANY two people who want to make such a commitment to each other.

I think many people place too much meaning on marriage - anyone that thinks allowing same sex marriages is going to take away from the sacred meaning of the word/event is doing so. Your marriage is what YOU and your partner make it, I would hope that you wouldn't let your marriage suffer because of what others are doing in their marriages. Your relationship should be the same the day before you get married as the day after, I don't think anyone should think it's going to change because of a piece of paper. The commitment needs to be there before the ceremony, and so I just don't see how same sex marriages could "offend" anyone in that regards.

Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to get married. But fortunately for everyone else, that is not reason enough to make ALL marriages illegal :)

But seriously, this is not only a very interesting, but also a very long thread. It could be that I have missed a post but the only real argument I have read against a legal same-sex marriage is that marriage is considered sacred by the church and can therefor only be between a man and a women.

All other arguments have either already been counterd (special rights vs equal rights) or are IMHO not directly related to marriage (children, gay-pride parade, general anti-gay remarks and feelings)

I'd like to give my 2cw on the sacred issue.
Being an atheist myself, I am not too familiar with the laws of the church.
What I do know is that there are many civil marriages that are perfectly legal and yet are not recognized by eg the Roman Catholic church.
Such as a marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim, or when one of the partners is divorced without consent of the church.

Allowing civil same-sex marriages, does not imply that a church/religion has to accept it.
IMO saying same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal because it is against a religion is the same as saying marrying someone from another church/religion should be illegal because a religion doesn't allow it.

Hmm, Very good point Seagull. That is something that I haven't thought about. That is true though, why should the beliefs of one or a few religions dictate the laws of a country with an extremely diverse population that follow a very large variety of dieties?



Definitely something to ponder.

The Supreme court of Canada has ruled that prohibiting homosexuals from marriage is discriminatory. Here is the Story from canada.com. Gay marraige is now legal.

Let gays marry now, court says
Ontario ruling sets off rush to licence offices; federal minister considers appeal

Janice Tibbetts
The Ottawa Citizen


Wednesday, June 11, 2003



Gay and lesbian couples raced to obtain marriage licences yesterday in a bid to pre-empt any attempt by the federal government to continue its flagging legal fight against same-sex marriage.

The rush to legal matrimony followed a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which yesterday went farther than any court in Canada by changing the definition of who can marry, effective immediately.

Previous court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia had given the federal government until July 2004 to change its law.

The first gay couple to legally become newlyweds were Crown prosecutor Michael Leshner and his partner Michael Stark, in a civil ceremony before a judge at a downtown Toronto courthouse.

"Today is the death of homophobia in the courtroom as we know it," declared Mr. Leshner, as he embraced and kissed his legal spouse.

As Mr. Leshner and Mr. Stark exchanged rings and sipped champagne, several other couples picked up marriage licences, after the court ordered Toronto city hall to issue them.

In Ottawa, longtime partners Lisa Lachance and Heather Gass said that were hoping to obtain a licence this morning and possibly "do the deed" tonight.

The federal government, which until yesterday had had more than a year's grace period to recraft its law, scrambled to decide what to do next.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon met with senior cabinet ministers to discuss his plans, which he will announce today after presenting them to the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Cauchon, however, hinted that the government's fight is not over yet.

"We really need a national solution," he said, stressing that Parliament should also have a role to play instead of leaving the "important social issue" entirely up to the courts.

"Having said that, we see the direction that the courts are taking now," Mr. Cauchon said.

The government could move as early as today to seek a stay of the court decision, pending a Supreme Court decision.

An appeal would buy time for the Justice Department, but even the Liberals' own research bureau has warned that the government will ultimately lose the fight.

If the high court agrees to hear the case, it could take another two years before making a decision. The case could become moot in the meantime, considering Paul Martin, the frontrunner to replace retiring Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, has said that it's time for the government to stop appealing.

The court, instead of telling the federal government to change its law, struck down the existing definition of marriage in Canada -- "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The new definition is "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others," the court said.

"Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite sex relationships," the court said in a unanimous, 61-page written ruling.

"In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships."

The federal government is responsible for the definition of marriage and the provinces oversee the solemnization, including the marriage registration. The decision, which dealt with seven Ontario couples, ordered the provincial government to register marriages.

Ontario Attorney General Norm Sterling said he would not stand in the way of the court's ruling. "If the decision today says that two people of the same sex can get married, that is the law of the land, then we will register," he said.

But Alberta Premier Ralph Klein promised to do everything in his power to block the decision and his officials urged the federal government to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to be the final arbiter in the case.

Gay and lesbians activists, along with several MPs, urged the federal government to stop the legal fight.

"I am calling on Jean Chrétien, the prime minister, as part of his legacy, to leave a legacy of respect," said New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, who is gay.

"Stop the appeals, stop the obstruction, stop the waste of taxpayers' money."

The ruling orders the Ontario government to register the January 2001 marriages of Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa and Elaine and Anne Vautour.

The couples married in ceremonies in January 2001 at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, using an ancient Christian tradition that allowed them to avoid having to get city-issued marriage licences.

The court decision dismisses every argument from the federal Justice Department, including its contention that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

The court also rejects the fear of churches that gay marriage infringes on religious freedom because it would force them to conduct ceremonies against their will.

"This case is about the legal institution of marriage," the court said.

"We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage."

As Mr. Cauchon considered his options, an all-party parliamentary committee met behind closed doors yesterday to put the finishing touches on a report, crafted from months of public hearings on whether gays and lesbians should be permitted to wed.

Mr. Cauchon said he wants to consider the report's recommendations.

But there were complaints among committee members that the political process has been usurped by the courts.

"We apparently have judge-made law in this country and we're just here for decoration," said John McKay, a Liberal MP who opposes same-sex marriage.

Vic Toews, justice critic for the Canadian Alliance, called on the federal government to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Toews also says that the government should not be shy about using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, a safety valve that allows politicians to override unpopular court decisions

This may open a can of worms. The US government recognizes marriages, performed in other countries. I wonder how many US citizens will go to Canada and get married?

>>The US government recognizes marriages, performed in other countries<<

Yes and no. In Arabic countries a man is allowed up to four wives. This is not recognized here.

George

The question is if the government will appeal it. The supreme court is right - it is discriminatory.

<<The court decision dismisses every argument from the federal Justice Department, including its contention that the purpose of marriage is procreation. >>

Uhh, so according to the federal Justice Department, women should not get married after they have gone through menopause?:confused:

Canada is getting calls from all over the world from homosexuals wanting to marry. Maybe this will help our tourism issue after SARs!

In a world where gender is becoming increasingly irrelevant, i don't see why the law shouldn't change to accurately reflect the society it governs.

We all forget we have thousands of years of evolution ahead of us. In the future, same sex marriages will be an everyday affair.

I've just been reading this thread, missed it before, and here's my 2c worth.

I think if a couple, be it heterosexual or homosexual love eachother then it is no one else's business but their's if they get married. Their families even have no real right to meddle with their happiness and so strangers like us and the law makers of our various countries CERTAINLY do not. What gets me is that people who are against it are giving pretty lame reasons, if it's religion then would those people make single mothers, divorcees and children born out of wedlock outcasts? Would they deny them the same rights everyone else has? Religion is responsible, unfortunately, for so much hatred and non-understanding of anyone a bit different in their way of life than what they DEEM to be right, let me just say that I believe in God, but with me it's a more personal belief because I don't think I could believe in a God who took away his love from people for ANY reason, God is unconditional. So, that's the religious thing, then there's the fact that people say that homosexual couples FLAUNT themselves, that I think is utterly unfair.

Do not heterosexual couples flaut themselves, making out all over the place, when you kiss your partner in the street, because you love him, or her, does that mean you're flaunting it? No because everyone thinks it's normal. Surely "normal" should be two respectful people sharing their love and lives together. When I hug my boyfriend in the street, or kiss him after a lovely night out, at least I don't have to worry about people making jeers and being offensive. Surely you all can see that this is enough of an excuse to try to stand up to the world and show that they're not afraid to be seen to be who they essentially are. Why is that flaunting it?

Gay culture, I find to be very full and still blossoming, because finally some wiser politicians are realising that it is ridiculous to put down people just because they find their own sex attractive. I can't really understand why people have a problem with this. They're not hurting you or anyone with their actions. Please think about it.
What business is it of our's? ANd if you don't like it then just don't look, it's that simple. But don't say they flaunt it, because when people see a young heterosexual couple kissing, they say awwwwwww look at young love, so why is it the moment they are homosexual it suddenly becomes FLAUNTING?

As for the children issue, this world has so many children born into heterosexual abusive homes, heterosexual people for whom, it's "OK" to have kids, treating them as commodities, abusing them, domineering them or abandoning them, so why would it be wrong for a loving gay couple to have a child? I say it's great, especially those couples who want to adopt children who need love. I honestly think we're all sitting on a throne of judgement we just don't belong on if we start thinking of gay people as "abnormal", I sure as hell wouldn't class myself pure enough to cast any first stone, especially at a culture that is asking only for the same rights as hetero people have. There is just no JUST reason for preventing them, love is love. Full stop.

(P.S. sorry about the length)

*applause* i agree...

Very well said Linka! :D

finally. as for all these people who seem to find it so very distasteful that some gay people go on "pride" marches. Imagine you are dating/in a relationship with someone yet if you were to hold hands/kiss in public you would attract verbal and physical abuse (including being asked/told to stop by police...for holding hands and offending public decency). Imagine then for a minute that you are also surrounded by hundreds of straight people everyday( read: normal people.... because most do)and these couples can hold hands at fairs, ¨kiss in the street and no one bats an eyelid. Imagine then that once a year or so there is a public gathering where you can walk and feel comfortable along with other peolpe like you, where you can kiss your boyfriend/girlfriend as much as you want. Imagine then, reading that some of these straight people have a problem with such a public display when they are free to do so whenever and wherever they please.

Adam

This was posted on about page 2 or 3, and I have just found this thread.....so what I have to say is probably repeat, but just for the record.....

I personally don't like any public displays of affection. I don't care if it's holding hands, kissing, putting an arm around the other's waist, whatever.....I think it's rude, and not appropriate. I have had one bf, I'm not gay, but I can't imagine seeing myself in one of those types of relationships, where it's all based on the outside "reflection" and what ppl think. I hate it when ppl come into the restaurant where I work, and they are all over each other, kissing, holding hands, not paying attention to you b/c they are busy making out where they shouldn't be. I don't find it at all attractive, or going to make me more attracted to a certain person b/c of pda's. In fact, it would turn me off more. If you are going to do pda stuff, do it at home.

This may sound rude or whatever, but that's what I think. My parents do that in public, my sister and her husband don't, none of my friends & bf/gf do. I think sure you can be hanging out together, and for the most part, if you are together, most everyone knows. What's the big deal? If I'm going out with someone, I don't want the whole world to know about it, just the important ppl in my life.

I personally don't believe in the whole scientific theory thing. No reason really, I just don't believe in it. I also don't believe in evolution, that we came from apes.

You are what you are what you are. As long as one of my friends who might be gay doesn't force me on their preference fine. But as soon as someone does that, we are not friends anymore. Maybe it's just cuz I grew up in the country, and am not around this type of behaviour a lot, but it disturbs me.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but it's just my opinion.