Same Sex Marriage in Canada

Post Reply New Topic

I'm Canadian and I couldn't care less.

About what?

I think we may very well be missing the whole point - Canada has had gay marriage for some time now, and that country has yet to slide into the ocean, or be destroyed by fire from the heavens.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As a matter of fact, in some ways we're doing far better than most countries that band gay marriage.

Maybe it's a sign

I think you're right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Utter and complete nonsense.

Did voters get to decide whether or not my parents could marry? Do voters have any say in whether or not the estate of one of my parents passes to the other without a tax penalty? Do voters have any say in whether or not one can make medical decisions in the event of the other's incapacity.

No, they did not. I was simply assumed that the legislature and Parliament were competent to make decisions on these public policy questions. But when it comes to same-sex couples, suddenly people get into their bully pulpits assuming that their rights as voters to determine the leadership of the government and the composition of the legislature also gives them the right to intrude into the private lives of other citizens.

Well, I'll have none of it. You don't get to vote on the civil rights of minorities. If marriage exists as a legal institution, then it must exist for everyone, or for no one.

Meanwhile, the US Constitution is not subject to the whims of voters. If the Courts determine that a definition of marriage that excludes homosexual couples is unconstitutional, then no vote by any majority, no matter how substantial, is competent to override the Courts' interpretation of the constitution. That is the courts' exclusive prerogative and an attempt on the part of the electorate to usurp it is improper.



The most likely reason that comes to mind is that one partner's pension and employment benefits will not allow her to change the designation of her beneficiary until the marriage is legally dissolved.

That's why the Founders, in their wisdom, rejected absolute democracy, because they knew it could only result in the tyranny of the many.

-Bill, otherwise known a Kraichgauer

Okay, I'm Gay. - (Hey, that rhymed).

I did mention many times before on WP that I'm a Gay He Woman who's attracted to women. I'm also very old fashioned and I think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman and a man and a woman, only.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that belief, and you are free to live your life according to that belief.

The issue only becomes problematic if you were to expect others to live according to your beliefs.

I don't understand why the government(s) don't just drop the term "marriage" from laws and what not. I am in a "civil union" in Canada, and I could care less about some "married" status. We've been together for 12 1/2 years, that wouldn't change anything for me.
Governments, for all legal and practical purposes, should simply recognise a "civil union", and religious groups could continue to practise whatever wedding or marriage rites they believe in. Who would that bother or offend? Homosexual couples would have the same "civil union" any heterosexual couple could hold under the law, and marriages could continue to be observed by those who value its ceremonial significance.

An eminently sensible approach, but one fraught with complication.

It is patently clear--at least in Canadian law--that marriage is different. There are centuries of common law regarding marriage. For example, it is a matter of common law that getting married invalidates your will, while getting divorced simply invalidates gifts to your former spouse. But the common law is silent on whether these rules apply to partners in a family relationship other than marriage. The Canada Evidence Act provides that a spouse is not compellable as a witness, and no spouse can be compelled to testify as to communications passing between them. The act is silent, however, on a comparable privilege for common law partners. There is currently a case before the Supreme Court of Canada from Québec in which a partner is seeking a division of property upon dissolution of the relationship. What would occur as a matter of course under the Divorce Act is simply not provided for in the relevant provincial law.

These are but three of hundreds of statutory, regulatory and common law matters in which spouses are differently situated that other people. And any attempt to "drop" the term marriage would required each and every one of these and determining whether they are relevant to a couple in an non-married relationship.

For my part, I believe that labels matter. If government is in the marriage business at all, it must be in the marriage business for everybody. If government is not in the marriage business, then it must not stand in the way of those who are. Finally, if government is not in the marriage business, it must be in some other business whereby tax treatment, maintenance and support and estates, for example, are addressed.