This just in: Canada's Supreme Court responded today to Parliament's request for clarification on the constitutionality of extending Federal marraige protection to gays and lesbians. The Supremes OKed civil marraige under the Equality provisions in the charter, emphasizing that the constitution is an evolving entity, and should adapt with society.
They also responded that no religion could be forced to perform gay marriages against their will, as that would contravene Freedom of Religion. This in effect slays the Boogie-man that ultra conservative churches put forward.
However, marriages are still registered provincially, and the province of Alberta has indicated it will not register gay marriage, and if a federal law is put in place to compel them to do so, the provincial gov. will use the "notwithstanding clause" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to opt out. This being said, marriages performed in one province are legal in all the others, so Alberta g &l s wishing marriage must register in another province.
Full Version: Canada Supreme Court OKs gay marriage
That being said President Bush will probably now wish to visit Alberta and stand by his sanctity of marriage upholders. Yeeeee hawwww!
I have a question for the lawyers among us, particularly the immigration lawyers. It is my understanding that American policy is to honor marriages of citizens, residents and visitors that are performed out of the country are honored by state and federal agencies. There are several countries in this world that allow polygamy. Are polygamous marriages from other countries honored by the United States? Either way that question is answered, what will be the impact upon Americans who go to Canada or Canadian who come to America having participated in a Canadian same sex marriage?
jqueer, you don't need to look at the validity of polygamous unions in some countries being honored in the USA to answer your question. Both the Netherlands and Belgium have observed the right of same sex marriage in their countries for 3 years now. I can assure you that USA has not recognized the validiity of those marriages in cases of immigration. So the fact that Canada is next country to allow such unions is not going to change US policy anytime soon.
[ December 11, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]
[ December 11, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]
Watching The National last night and their coverage of the marriage debate, the Tories in general and R. Klein in particular kept mentioning possible use of the Notwithstanding Clause to block federalising SSM. Would one of our Canadian brothers kindly explain the Notwithstanding Clause? I've not been able to make heads nor tails of it so far.
The Notwithstanding Clause refers to section 33 of the Charter, which basically provides authority to the government to enact legislation that overrides the principles of the Charter, as deemed by the courts. For the legislation to be legally enacted:
1) the law must clearly state what section of thre Charter it's infringing; and
2) the law lasts for a max of 5 years (which, by that time, the goverment that enacted this law could be kicked out of office by the public), which would have to be renewed if the govt so desired.
So, if the Liberal Government made a law that gave health benefits to men but not to women, a women's rights group would no doubt challenge the law and the court would no doubt say the law's unconstitutional on the grounds that the law infringes on the equality provision based on sex (s. 15 of the Charter). But if the govt. nonetheless wants this law to have any power, it would have to use the notwithstanding clause, clearly stating that the law infringes s. 15 and then renew the law every 5 years. I.e,"*Notwithstanding* section 15 of the Charter, the govt endows men, but not women, with the following health benefit: blah, blah."
It sounds dangerous but it is rarely applied. It was used by the Quebec government to restrict signs to only the French language. The Alberta government did use the Notwithstanding clause in 2000 to restrict the definition of marriage but it wouldn't hold because marriage is under the domain of the federal govt, not the provincial govt.
[ December 17, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: glacier76 ]
1) the law must clearly state what section of thre Charter it's infringing; and
2) the law lasts for a max of 5 years (which, by that time, the goverment that enacted this law could be kicked out of office by the public), which would have to be renewed if the govt so desired.
So, if the Liberal Government made a law that gave health benefits to men but not to women, a women's rights group would no doubt challenge the law and the court would no doubt say the law's unconstitutional on the grounds that the law infringes on the equality provision based on sex (s. 15 of the Charter). But if the govt. nonetheless wants this law to have any power, it would have to use the notwithstanding clause, clearly stating that the law infringes s. 15 and then renew the law every 5 years. I.e,"*Notwithstanding* section 15 of the Charter, the govt endows men, but not women, with the following health benefit: blah, blah."
It sounds dangerous but it is rarely applied. It was used by the Quebec government to restrict signs to only the French language. The Alberta government did use the Notwithstanding clause in 2000 to restrict the definition of marriage but it wouldn't hold because marriage is under the domain of the federal govt, not the provincial govt.
[ December 17, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: glacier76 ]
Although I was previously ambivalent about gay marriage (wondering why our kind would want to participate in a 'sacred' institution with such a high failure rate), I am angry and ashamed that Alberta (where I live) is the only province actively opposing the Supreme Court ruling. If gay marriage is accepted in the other provinces, why not here too? Our ignorant premier Ralph Klein (who claims to have gay friends) is sucking up to the rural right-wingers who dominate his Conservative party and has started a crusade to pressure federal MPs from all parties to vote against the legislation which would allow same-sex marriage throughout Canada. His view is shared by some people in other provinces, but I think his strategy is doomed to failure, as Klein is not well-respected outside Alberta. This is the act of a desperate man, who reluctantly admits he cannot invoke the 'notwithstanding clause' to opt out of the legislation. So instead he chooses to polarize Albertans (and Canadians in general) on this issue in a contemptible, fear-mongering attempt to sway the public to his narrow view.
Thankfully, Klein's near god-like status is fading here, as evidenced by the fact his party lost a significant number of votes and seats to the Liberals and NDP in the recent provincial election. I was very pleased to hear today that one of his own cabinet ministers, Gary Mar, has broken ranks with Klein, by speaking out in favour of same-sex marriage. And at least one federal Conservative MP from Calgary (Jim Prentice) supports same-sex marriage, as does Belinda Stronach from Ontario. Also, a recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that Albertans are only slightly more opposed to gay marriage than Canadians in general, despite the redneck image and the lies that Klein spouts incessantly. Several columnists in the Calgary and Edmonton daily newspapers have condemned Klein's position on this issue, and the published letters to the editor (including one that I wrote) are more anti-Klein than pro-Klein.
I know I shouldn't complain too much; even though Alberta is thought of as equivalent to Texas by Canadian standards, by US standards it would be considered at least moderate, perhaps even liberal, on gay issues. Despite the fact that gay marriage is not yet recognized here thanks to Ralph Klein, there are laws in place to protect gays from discrimination, unlike many states and other countries. However, relative to the rest of Canada, the position of Alberta's government on same-sex marriage is downright embarrassing to the many fair-minded people who live here.
[ December 17, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]
Thankfully, Klein's near god-like status is fading here, as evidenced by the fact his party lost a significant number of votes and seats to the Liberals and NDP in the recent provincial election. I was very pleased to hear today that one of his own cabinet ministers, Gary Mar, has broken ranks with Klein, by speaking out in favour of same-sex marriage. And at least one federal Conservative MP from Calgary (Jim Prentice) supports same-sex marriage, as does Belinda Stronach from Ontario. Also, a recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that Albertans are only slightly more opposed to gay marriage than Canadians in general, despite the redneck image and the lies that Klein spouts incessantly. Several columnists in the Calgary and Edmonton daily newspapers have condemned Klein's position on this issue, and the published letters to the editor (including one that I wrote) are more anti-Klein than pro-Klein.
I know I shouldn't complain too much; even though Alberta is thought of as equivalent to Texas by Canadian standards, by US standards it would be considered at least moderate, perhaps even liberal, on gay issues. Despite the fact that gay marriage is not yet recognized here thanks to Ralph Klein, there are laws in place to protect gays from discrimination, unlike many states and other countries. However, relative to the rest of Canada, the position of Alberta's government on same-sex marriage is downright embarrassing to the many fair-minded people who live here.
[ December 17, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]
What is the prospect for the federal legislation that will be brought up for debate in January? I have seen some indications that passage is not a sure thing. Liberal back-benchers will be allowed to vote their conscience, while the cabinet members will be obligated to support the legislation. But there's dissent in the Liberal ranks, & I read last week about the possibility of one or two cabinet resignations by Liberals who can't bring themselves to support same-sex marriage. The Conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed, while the Bloc & NDP MPs are supportive. Assuming full cabinet support, that means 38 Liberal votes in favor, in addition to 54 Bloc & 19 NDP votes. Perhaps Liberal defections will be balanced out by a few Tory votes in favor, but the bottom line is that the votes of slightly more than half of the Liberal back-benchers will be necessary to assure passage. The fear is that the lag time between the SC ruling & the parliamentary debate will give the bigots time to organize & bring pressure on wavering Liberal MPs, especially those who represent rural ridings.
A Canadian explained a few months ago that even so, it was a "heads we win, tails they lose" scenario, insofar as if the SSM legislation should be voted down, it wouldn't undo the marriages already performed & wouldn't change the situation in those provinces & territories where SSM has already been legalized by the courts. But it would be a game-changer for sure, & would kill the momentum toward social acceptance & full legal equality that has occurred in Canada in the last 10 years. Further, parliamentary defeat for SSM would empower the right-wingers who would like to challenge Canada's liberal consensus on social issues in general, & who would love nothing more than to import from the U.S. the politics of culture war. But this isn't going to happen, is it?
A Canadian explained a few months ago that even so, it was a "heads we win, tails they lose" scenario, insofar as if the SSM legislation should be voted down, it wouldn't undo the marriages already performed & wouldn't change the situation in those provinces & territories where SSM has already been legalized by the courts. But it would be a game-changer for sure, & would kill the momentum toward social acceptance & full legal equality that has occurred in Canada in the last 10 years. Further, parliamentary defeat for SSM would empower the right-wingers who would like to challenge Canada's liberal consensus on social issues in general, & who would love nothing more than to import from the U.S. the politics of culture war. But this isn't going to happen, is it?
QUOTE
BillyBones:
What is the prospect for the federal legislation that will be brought up for debate in January? I have seen some indications that passage is not a sure thing. Liberal back-benchers will be allowed to vote their conscience, while the cabinet members will be obligated to support the legislation. But there's dissent in the Liberal ranks, & I read last week about the possibility of one or two cabinet resignations by Liberals who can't bring themselves to support same-sex marriage. The Conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed, while the Bloc & NDP MPs are supportive. Assuming full cabinet support, that means 38 Liberal votes in favor, in addition to 54 Bloc & 19 NDP votes. Perhaps Liberal defections will be balanced out by a few Tory votes in favor, but the bottom line is that the votes of slightly more than half of the Liberal back-benchers will be necessary to assure passage. The fear is that the lag time between the SC ruling & the parliamentary debate will give the bigots time to organize & bring pressure on wavering Liberal MPs, especially those who represent rural ridings.
A Canadian explained a few months ago that even so, it was a \"heads we win, tails they lose\" scenario, insofar as if the SSM legislation should be voted down, it wouldn't undo the marriages already performed & wouldn't change the situation in those provinces & territories where SSM has already been legalized by the courts. But it would be a game-changer for sure, & would kill the momentum toward social acceptance & full legal equality that has occurred in Canada in the last 10 years. Further, parliamentary defeat for SSM would empower the right-wingers who would like to challenge Canada's liberal consensus on social issues in general, & who would love nothing more than to import from the U.S. the politics of culture war. But this isn't going to happen, is it?
If the bill did suffer defeat in the house of commons, gay marriages would still continue.What is the prospect for the federal legislation that will be brought up for debate in January? I have seen some indications that passage is not a sure thing. Liberal back-benchers will be allowed to vote their conscience, while the cabinet members will be obligated to support the legislation. But there's dissent in the Liberal ranks, & I read last week about the possibility of one or two cabinet resignations by Liberals who can't bring themselves to support same-sex marriage. The Conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed, while the Bloc & NDP MPs are supportive. Assuming full cabinet support, that means 38 Liberal votes in favor, in addition to 54 Bloc & 19 NDP votes. Perhaps Liberal defections will be balanced out by a few Tory votes in favor, but the bottom line is that the votes of slightly more than half of the Liberal back-benchers will be necessary to assure passage. The fear is that the lag time between the SC ruling & the parliamentary debate will give the bigots time to organize & bring pressure on wavering Liberal MPs, especially those who represent rural ridings.
A Canadian explained a few months ago that even so, it was a \"heads we win, tails they lose\" scenario, insofar as if the SSM legislation should be voted down, it wouldn't undo the marriages already performed & wouldn't change the situation in those provinces & territories where SSM has already been legalized by the courts. But it would be a game-changer for sure, & would kill the momentum toward social acceptance & full legal equality that has occurred in Canada in the last 10 years. Further, parliamentary defeat for SSM would empower the right-wingers who would like to challenge Canada's liberal consensus on social issues in general, & who would love nothing more than to import from the U.S. the politics of culture war. But this isn't going to happen, is it?
What would need to happen would be for someone in the 3 remaining provinces to bring a court challenge.
If the conservatives got into power, and tried to use the notwithstanding clause to create a "separate but equal" system, this could backfire on them.
Anything that is over ruled using the clause is only good for 5 years. Peoples attitudes have changed a lot in the past 5 years, and the momentum should continue.
Most Canadians would be VERY, VERY adverse to taking away a right. Even moderates, who voted conservaative last time, overwhelminly support the right now that we have it.
To take away a right would lead to a very divisive election, and would cost the Conservatives dearly in Ontario.
Rural ridings will always be more conservative, but the best part of all of it is that even the leader of the Conservative Party, who is vilified for being a "republican toady" in some areas, agrees that all of the rights and priviledges of marriages, both federal and provincial, should be confirmed upon gay couples. He just doesn't like the word "Marriage" used.
So in my books, the battle is 95% won.
Could you imagine the Republicans supporting rights equal to marriage for the GLBT community?
Not in THIS universe.
Merry Christmas, All. SOME Republicans would and do fully support equal marriage (and human) rights for LGBT people. It's not ALL Republicans who are anti-gay hypocrites, just the White House, the national party hierarchy and the ones who control it in Congress.
In fact, I would venture that if the California Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage were legal, Governor Gropenführer would support the ruling (after some hemming and hawing), as might New York's liberal GOP governor Pataki. He even supported a repeal of the Rockefeller (another truly liberal GOPer) drug laws. Rhode Island's Roman Catholic Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, would probably support gay marriage--called "gay marriage"--as well. Rhode Island has the largest percentage of Roman Catholics of any U.S. state, and also is one of the most liberal in the U.S. So it's not the entire GOP, just the creeps in power, a number of them closeted fags themselves.
In fact, I would venture that if the California Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage were legal, Governor Gropenführer would support the ruling (after some hemming and hawing), as might New York's liberal GOP governor Pataki. He even supported a repeal of the Rockefeller (another truly liberal GOPer) drug laws. Rhode Island's Roman Catholic Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, would probably support gay marriage--called "gay marriage"--as well. Rhode Island has the largest percentage of Roman Catholics of any U.S. state, and also is one of the most liberal in the U.S. So it's not the entire GOP, just the creeps in power, a number of them closeted fags themselves.
Just bumping this up to link to the FANTASTIC speech Paul Martin gave in support of the national gay marriage bill in Canada:
Paul Martin Speech
And this is the part that really got me (really the 2nd paragraph, but you need the 1st for context)
Paul Martin Speech
And this is the part that really got me (really the 2nd paragraph, but you need the 1st for context)
QUOTE
Mr. Speaker: In the 1960s, the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s, the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.
God, if we only had politicians this brave and honest in this country frown
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.
CBC report. They say that normally the person sponsoring the bill (in this case, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler) would start the debate, but in this case Prime Minister Paul Martin himself spoke first. I've also included comments by Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. Despite being largely Catholic, Quebec supports same-sex marriage more than any other provice. PM Paul Martin is also Catholic.
QUOTE
Prime Minister Paul Martin kicked off the parliamentary debate on his government's controversial same-sex marriage legislation Wednesday, saying the debate would be \"about the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be.\"
\"Put simply, we must always remember that separate but equal is not equal,\" he told the House of Commons, rejecting the proposal that homosexual couples be limited to civil unions.
* * *
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe compared the issue of same-sex marriage to that of women voting, which was not permitted in Canada a century ago.
\"Today no one will dare to call into question the woman's right to vote, because it is an issue of fundamental rights,\" Duceppe said.
\"And I think that in a century no one will call into question the right of same-sex couples to join together the same way as a man and a woman through the institution of marriage. Because the very evolution is part of a broader universal right the progression of rights in democracies. ...
\"Quite beyond our partisan attachments, or even our political and religious convictions, we have to think about what we would answer, what we would say to a human being who wants to marry his or her same-sex partner and asks us, 'why are you refusing me marriage?'
\"Does that mean love between same-sex partners is not as valid as love between a man and a woman?\" Duceppe asked. \"Or that love between same-sex partners does not exist, or should not exist?\"
\"Put simply, we must always remember that separate but equal is not equal,\" he told the House of Commons, rejecting the proposal that homosexual couples be limited to civil unions.
* * *
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe compared the issue of same-sex marriage to that of women voting, which was not permitted in Canada a century ago.
\"Today no one will dare to call into question the woman's right to vote, because it is an issue of fundamental rights,\" Duceppe said.
\"And I think that in a century no one will call into question the right of same-sex couples to join together the same way as a man and a woman through the institution of marriage. Because the very evolution is part of a broader universal right the progression of rights in democracies. ...
\"Quite beyond our partisan attachments, or even our political and religious convictions, we have to think about what we would answer, what we would say to a human being who wants to marry his or her same-sex partner and asks us, 'why are you refusing me marriage?'
\"Does that mean love between same-sex partners is not as valid as love between a man and a woman?\" Duceppe asked. \"Or that love between same-sex partners does not exist, or should not exist?\"
I watched the video of the Prime Minister talking while I was eating my lunch today, and I can honestly say that today I am one DAMN proud Canadian. It will still be a hard road, and with almost every conservative speaking, it will get boring.
But the arguement has been framed as minority rights, which it is. For the leader of the conservatives to try and shit all over the liberal party for refusing jewish immigration in the 1930's, and Japanese detention in the 1940's, shows how desparate they are.
While those 2 items did happen, and Canada should hang their collective heads in shame at the memory of them, as well as the laws forbidding Chinese immigration in the early part of the 20th century, the conservatives must understand that we do not live in the same Canada that existed back then.
We are a more tolerant country, a more accepting country, a more pluralistic country. We are a country that embraces the rest of the world, it's cultures, and it's dynamics, and we encourage them to become part of the changing fabric of Canada. That is what I beleive makes my country the greatest in the world.
I had the great priviledge when I was growing up of having the opportunity to learn both official languages. As a young immpressionable 13 year old, I remember the Late Pierre Trudeau in my parents living room (my father was in politics at the time), and I was practicing my french language skills. He was patient, kind, and took the time to help me, and then went back to business with my dad. He concentrated on helping me just as much as he did while talking to my father about something. For those 10 minutes, I had his complete and total concentration, and I was a fan of his for life.
No one more that Trudeau has shaped the modern Canada, and I saw why first hand.
This battle in Parliament is not won, and might even be turned around by the next gov't, but in some senses that doesn't matter. Canada, perhaps more than any other country, marches forward, and we will continue to do so.
And for that, we sometimes have to thank the monolith to the south. The more your country lurches to the right, the more mine does to the left.
But the arguement has been framed as minority rights, which it is. For the leader of the conservatives to try and shit all over the liberal party for refusing jewish immigration in the 1930's, and Japanese detention in the 1940's, shows how desparate they are.
While those 2 items did happen, and Canada should hang their collective heads in shame at the memory of them, as well as the laws forbidding Chinese immigration in the early part of the 20th century, the conservatives must understand that we do not live in the same Canada that existed back then.
We are a more tolerant country, a more accepting country, a more pluralistic country. We are a country that embraces the rest of the world, it's cultures, and it's dynamics, and we encourage them to become part of the changing fabric of Canada. That is what I beleive makes my country the greatest in the world.
I had the great priviledge when I was growing up of having the opportunity to learn both official languages. As a young immpressionable 13 year old, I remember the Late Pierre Trudeau in my parents living room (my father was in politics at the time), and I was practicing my french language skills. He was patient, kind, and took the time to help me, and then went back to business with my dad. He concentrated on helping me just as much as he did while talking to my father about something. For those 10 minutes, I had his complete and total concentration, and I was a fan of his for life.
No one more that Trudeau has shaped the modern Canada, and I saw why first hand.
This battle in Parliament is not won, and might even be turned around by the next gov't, but in some senses that doesn't matter. Canada, perhaps more than any other country, marches forward, and we will continue to do so.
And for that, we sometimes have to thank the monolith to the south. The more your country lurches to the right, the more mine does to the left.
4 gay Israeli couples got married in Toronto in the hopes of returning to Israel and forcing their gov't to recognize their marriage. From the Globe and Mail.
QUOTE
Inside the chapel, with a handful of friends who made the trip from Israel and hordes of news cameras, four gay couples were married, far from their homes and their customs, in a bid to change Israeli law to recognize same-sex marriage
\"We'll make sure that others continue to come here until we change the system,\" Rabbi David Lazar said.
Tel Aviv's Etai Pinkas, 31, the first openly gay city councillor in Israel, his partner Yoav Arad, 32, and the other three couples will now head home and try to have the state recognize their marriages.
\"We'll make sure that others continue to come here until we change the system,\" Rabbi David Lazar said.
Tel Aviv's Etai Pinkas, 31, the first openly gay city councillor in Israel, his partner Yoav Arad, 32, and the other three couples will now head home and try to have the state recognize their marriages.
The Conservatives have thrown in the towel and won't hold up same-sex legislation.
QUOTE
The Conservatives say they will not filibuster or obstruct passage of controversial same-sex marriage legislation before the House of Commons breaks for summer, with Tory House Leader Jay Hill noting that his party has no means left to block it.
* * *
\"There is no way to stop it. . . . It's inevitable, because even with some 30-some backbench Liberals that will vote against, there's insufficient numbers to stop it,\" he said.
* * *
\"There is no way to stop it. . . . It's inevitable, because even with some 30-some backbench Liberals that will vote against, there's insufficient numbers to stop it,\" he said.
Well it's about time they woke up and smelled the coffee. I did find it distasteful though that on Pride Day, Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper came to Toronto to speak out against gay marriage at a Muslim religious group meeting.
Opinion piece in the Toronto Star by NHL hockey legend Ken Dryden, who is now Minister of Social Development.
QUOTE
Why I support gay marriage bill.
* * *
So, all these decades later, with a vote ahead of me, where am I? To me, man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman, marriage is for two people who love each other, who want to be with each other and who privately and publicly commit to each other.
* * *
So, all these decades later, with a vote ahead of me, where am I? To me, man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman, marriage is for two people who love each other, who want to be with each other and who privately and publicly commit to each other.
Drum roll, please. Commons to approve same-sex bill today.
[ June 28, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]
QUOTE
Tuesday June 28, 2005 Ottawa -- The House of Commons is scheduled to give final approval to alter Canada's definition of marriage today after the federal Liberals once again used a late-night closure motion to bring debate on the legislation to an end.
The vote is expected to take place around 8:30pm EST.[ June 28, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]
Harper's sure not going to make any friends in Quebec with this quote:
"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,"
"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,"
If this does pass...yet another reason to move to Canada. 
QUOTE
JC:
Harper's sure not going to make any friends in Quebec with this quote:
\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
This is the same Harper who tried to ally himself with the Bloc in order to defeat the gov't budget. What an idiot!Harper's sure not going to make any friends in Quebec with this quote:
\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
As Jack Layton said, not only does Harper think that gay people are not equal, but that Quebeckers are not equal, either. Their votes lack "legitimacy."
Well its official now. Parliament today passed the bill making same sex marriage legal in all parts of Canada. Now I just have to convince 'someone' that he really wants to ask me to marry him 
.
.
Bill C-38 passed 158 to 133, but I believe it still has to go through the Senate before it becomes the law of the land. But it is essentially a fait accompli. Yay!
The "vote is about the Charter of Rights," said Martin. "We're a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities you don't cherry-pick rights."
Bravo!
Bravo!
Congratulations to Canada. Once again, putting the USA to shame.
QUOTE
canmark:
Bill C-38 passed 158 to 133, but I believe it still has to go through the Senate before it becomes the law of the land. But it is essentially a fait accompli. Yay! :)
Yes it still has to go to the Senate, but after 12 yrs in power the Liberals are an overwhelming majority in The Senate. The Leader of the Senate has also stated that the Senate will sit until the bill is passed. Then it only needs Royal Assent, and again that is a formality since the Crown acts on advice of the Prime Minister. So effectively any gay couple can run down to City Hall in the morning, anywhere in Canada, and pick up a marriage licence.
Bill C-38 passed 158 to 133, but I believe it still has to go through the Senate before it becomes the law of the land. But it is essentially a fait accompli. Yay! :)
AP article via USA Today: Canadian lawmakers OK same-sex marriage nationwide
Chronology: same-sex marriage
[ June 28, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]
Chronology: same-sex marriage
[ June 28, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]
Question for the US Lawyers out there. If the US recognizes str8 Canadian marriages (US Citizens who marry in Canada) will a gay couple file an anti descrimination suit based on their Canadian marriage being just as legal as the Str8 couples marriage. Also isnt it a convention in the US for states to recognize marriages made in other states. So what about a California gay couple who marry in Massachusetts. Could they file a suit to have their marriage recognized or to invalidate the marriages of all other California couples who married in Massachusetts?
Good question Swiminbuff. I wonder if there will be a boycott of all things Canadian by the right-wing nut jobs. Hmmm, this could be interesting.
QUOTE
canmark:
As Jack Layton said, not only does Harper think that gay people are not equal, but that Quebeckers are not equal, either. Their votes lack \"legitimacy.\"
The amazing thing to me, is that there are people who actually think this weasel would make a good Prime Minister.
QUOTE
JC:
\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
This is the same Harper who tried to ally himself with the Bloc in order to defeat the gov't budget. What an idiot!\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
As Jack Layton said, not only does Harper think that gay people are not equal, but that Quebeckers are not equal, either. Their votes lack \"legitimacy.\"
QUOTE
millerbeach:
Good question Swiminbuff. I wonder if there will be a boycott of all things Canadian by the right-wing nut jobs. Hmmm, this could be interesting.
Boycott??? I think Canadians ought to be watching for the next Bush press conference. He might just ask Congress to declare war because those wacky Canadians are now a threat to 'traditional Amurikan valyoos'. He has a history of trying to divert attention away from his screw-ups as a way to shore up his base, and now all he's worried about is his legacy according to that twit Tucker Carlson.Good question Swiminbuff. I wonder if there will be a boycott of all things Canadian by the right-wing nut jobs. Hmmm, this could be interesting.
[ June 29, 2005, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: so fla ref ]
GWB should probably worry more about his trade deficit with us than our dicks being weapons of mass destruction.
QUOTE
swiminbuff:
Also isnt it a convention in the US for states to recognize marriages made in other states. So what about a California gay couple who marry in Massachusetts. Could they file a suit to have their marriage recognized or to invalidate the marriages of all other California couples who married in Massachusetts?
Yep, it's call the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the constitution. In theory, it should be an easy call legally, but surprisingly those damned "activist" judges seem to find ways to weasel around the obvious.
Also isnt it a convention in the US for states to recognize marriages made in other states. So what about a California gay couple who marry in Massachusetts. Could they file a suit to have their marriage recognized or to invalidate the marriages of all other California couples who married in Massachusetts?
Actually, I think it is DOMA that scuttles the cross recognition of MA same-sex marriages at this time. DOMA gives states the authority to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in a different state. DOMA is widely considered unconstitutional, but has yet to be ruled so.
I believe the AG of New York stated that NY law forbids same-sex marriages in NY, but has nothing that would prevent recognition of a legal same-sex marriage from a different state (MA) from being recognized in NY.
Finally, there is an archaic law in MA that prevents an out-of-state couple from marrying in MA if that marriage would be void in their home state. This law is a relic of anti-interracial marriage laws.
I believe the AG of New York stated that NY law forbids same-sex marriages in NY, but has nothing that would prevent recognition of a legal same-sex marriage from a different state (MA) from being recognized in NY.
Finally, there is an archaic law in MA that prevents an out-of-state couple from marrying in MA if that marriage would be void in their home state. This law is a relic of anti-interracial marriage laws.
QUOTE
JC:
Harper's sure not going to make any friends in Quebec with this quote:
\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
What was funny was to see the other federalists party defend the Bloc. They were scaring Canadians the month before about an evil alliance between the Bloc and Conservatives. Now when the Bloc votes please them, they defend their legitimacy. So much for the idea of the unholly alliance. It was as much legitimate last month but they were making it to be bad to vote on the same side. They needed the separatist Bloc votes to get it passed, quite ironic. Harper's sure not going to make any friends in Quebec with this quote:
\"I think because this bill is only being passed with the support of the BQ, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians. The truth is most federalist MPs will oppose this legislation,\"
In Quebec marriage is less popular among straight or gay. We don't marry as much, a bit outdated institution. Since March 2004 there has been about 300 gay marriages in Quebec.
At the start of the PQ leadership campaign, the gay candidate looks to be in the lead. If Quebec separates from Canada in three or four years maybe we'll have the first Quebec Queen. (or president or prime minister whatever it will be called)
QUOTE
swiminbuff:
GWB should probably worry more about his trade deficit with us than our dicks being weapons of mass destruction.
Look at it this way. If Dubya really pisses us off, we can levy and export tax on the 2 million barrels a day of oil we send southward.GWB should probably worry more about his trade deficit with us than our dicks being weapons of mass destruction.
How does an export tax of $25.00 per barrell sound? (but it would only apply to ugly republicans).
I {HEART} Canada.
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
How does an export tax of $25.00 per barrell sound? (but it would only apply to ugly republicans).
Okay. My comment was tacky.QUOTE
swiminbuff:
GWB should probably worry more about his trade deficit with us than our dicks being weapons of mass destruction.
Look at it this way. If Dubya really pisses us off, we can levy and export tax on the 2 million barrels a day of oil we send southward.GWB should probably worry more about his trade deficit with us than our dicks being weapons of mass destruction.
How does an export tax of $25.00 per barrell sound? (but it would only apply to ugly republicans).
What I should have said is that if your dick is considered a weapon of mass destruction, then I think that you should be in movies.
(friggin new cast on my arm today and can't type worth shit)
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
What I should have said is that if your dick is considered a weapon of mass destruction, then I think that you should be in movies.
(friggin new cast on my arm today and can't type worth shit)
LOL, I wasn't referring to my dick especially, I was making a joke about GWB's justification for past actions. wink
What I should have said is that if your dick is considered a weapon of mass destruction, then I think that you should be in movies.
(friggin new cast on my arm today and can't type worth shit)
QUOTE
swiminbuff:
I knew that, but am in a funny mood, but it obviously didn't show. My new cast is such a pretty shade of blue. MUCH better than the green one that was on. I was gonna go for pink or yellow, but figured that would kind of be "gilding the lily" so to speak.
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
What I should have said is that if your dick is considered a weapon of mass destruction, then I think that you should be in movies.
(friggin new cast on my arm today and can't type worth shit)
LOL, I wasn't referring to my dick especially, I was making a joke about GWB's justification for past actions. wink What I should have said is that if your dick is considered a weapon of mass destruction, then I think that you should be in movies.
(friggin new cast on my arm today and can't type worth shit)
Why not go Rainbow colored in honor of Pride? Hope you recover soon.
On the front page of the Globe and Mail this morning: Same-sex marriage bill must stand, majority says
QUOTE
Ottawa — Canadians do not want their political leaders to undo historic legislation allowing gays to legally marry in the wake of a pledge from the Conservatives that they would do just that if elected.
In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.
In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.
Senate passes same-sex marriage bill 47-21. Royal assent could come as early as today (Wednesday), and then it's law.
QUOTE
Senate passes same-sex marriage bill 47-21. Royal assent could come as early as today (Wednesday), and then it's law.
O, Canada! We down here in America sing your praises too. Now let us watch the fundies desperately try to find evidence of the collapse of Canadian civilization.
Once question, canmark - will the legislation take effect immediately or is there a delay?
Our wedding is scheduled for August 12 at Toronto City Hall. After 22 years, it is nice to be recognized legally. Thank you Canada.
If the political climate keep getting worse, we may have to try to move north some day!
If the political climate keep getting worse, we may have to try to move north some day!
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
Now let us watch the fundies desperately try to find evidence of the collapse of Canadian civilization.
Once question, canmark - will the legislation take effect immediately or is there a delay?
As soon as the legislation receives Royal assent, it becomes law.
QUOTE
Senate passes same-sex marriage bill 47-21. Royal assent could come as early as today (Wednesday), and then it's law.
O, Canada! We down here in America sing your praises too. Now let us watch the fundies desperately try to find evidence of the collapse of Canadian civilization.
Once question, canmark - will the legislation take effect immediately or is there a delay?
Royal Assent has been given. In the absence of the Governor General, recovering from her recent pace maker installation, the law was signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in her role as Deputy to the Governor General. Same sex marriage is now the law of the land.
[ July 20, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]
[ July 20, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: swiminbuff ]
Oh, Canada!
Our home and native land...sing along now... wink
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.