Gay Marriage

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

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

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

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

You are forcing your values on others.

I am not forcing anything on anyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tsg]

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

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

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

So, which is it?

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

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

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

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

Thank you for telling me what I think.

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Segnosaur]

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

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

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

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

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Beerina]

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

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

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

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

 

[Segnosaur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Segnosaur]

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

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

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

So, which is it?

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

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

What strawmen about abolishing paperwork, that is exactly what you are proposing for marriage.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

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

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

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

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

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

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

This issue is whether a church can be forced to marry a couple who does not have the same beliefs as the church. Churches have always had the right in Canada to decide what they want to do in their church as the courts accept that church CANON law applies to activities within the church. See: Donoghue v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa, 2007 at:
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight....c/doc/2007/2007canlii4857/2007canlii4857.html
for a very recent example.

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

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

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

Canadian court?

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

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

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

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

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

A school is not a church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pgwenthold]

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

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

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