Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[RedFred]

This decision not to appeal is kind of a good news/bad news story. On one hand some gays may be pleased about having this option. On the other hand, I assume various benefits at the federal level will now be available to gay spouses particularly 'dependant' gay spouses.

I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers. At the risk of offending some of Poly's gay posters I am not certain that I believe that gays should gain the special rights and privileges that other marrieds have. Basically it is a cash transfer from all singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages to the straight and gay marrieds.

Perhaps we should be going the other direction. Eliminate special cash payments and tax exemptions for straight married people unless they are directly tied to the married couple's children.

[Zylka]

Zylka, MANITOBA is also very much in favour of this. Get your facts right.

Gee whiz, LEONS

I guess the "bracket-Chance-QuestionMark-Bracket" after naming Manitoba wasn't enough to list it as a question. Go team anarchy!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1. Presumably US citizens could sue the United States to recognize a legal marriage obtained in Canada.

The issue would have already been settled when Norway (or was it the Netherlands?) started recognizing gay marriage. That's why I'm of the opinion that there is no treaty regarding this issue.

[Sava]

It's nice to see a progressive country in North America...

I never understood the objection to gay marriages. I mean, if you don't want to get married to a gay guy, don't.

I've heard the whole "family values" schpiel... there are enough abusive straight people to fill a country with. If two gay people want to get married, or adopt children, for that matter, and want to raise children in a loving environment, how can anyone in their right mind be against that? Sorry if this sounds silly, but I don't understand bigotry/hate/nazism.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by RedFred
I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers. At the risk of offending some of Poly's gay posters I am not certain that I believe that gays should gain the special rights and privileges that other marrieds have. Basically it is a cash transfer from all singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages to the straight and gay marrieds.

On the financial impact to taxpayers, my guess would be: insignificant. Our federal & provincial governments flush so much good money down the drain right now (what're we up to on the federal gun registry boondoggle now, $1 billion? And the Conservative government here in NS has been on a pre-election spending spree, throwing money out left & right to try and stave off a probable election loss), that whatever benefits that will now be paid out to spouses of same-sex employees are going to be a drop in the ocean by comparison, especially given their minority status. And if the two people in the marriage are as committed to each other as two people in a traditional marriage, then there's really nothing wrong with this.

And "singles and cohabitants in non-recognized marriages" have nothing to stop them from getting married, unlike the gays & lesbians until now.

[cinch]

I agree with Optimus' last post. Gay marriages won't bankrupt the country; that's what the gun registry is for.

Zylka:

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

[techumseh]

From today's Edmonton Journal:

Although (Canadian Justice Minister) Cauchon said homosexuals in other provinces will have to wait, gay-rights advocates and a constitutional expert say gay couples across the country have a persuasive legal argument to be permitted to marry immediately.

"It seems to me that someone in another province would be able to get a court order on the basis that the government is conceding," said Patrick Monahan, a constitutional expert at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

Though Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has threatened to block gay marriage, legal analysts say there is little provincial governments can do, considering the definition of marriage is federal jurisdiction. Provinces are responsible for the solemnization, which includes registering marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

Assuming he would rebuke homosexuals, why do you? And if he wouldn't, aren't you making a risky assumption?

Berz:

Jesus rebukes everyone who persists in sin, not just homosexuals. That's the same reason I'm not afraid to encourage people to leave the lifestyle.

The government that tells a man he can only marry a woman discriminates against men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women.

Following your reasoning, the law discriminates against people who want to marry their dog, who want to marry 2 women at the same time, who want to marry their sister or brother, mother or father.

The law does not treat homosexuals any different from heterosexuals, in marrying someone of the opposite sex. Hence, the law is not discriminatory against the person, but against the act. Valid laws certainly can discriminate against acts, they do so all the time.

I believe my freedom of association should be respected, therefore, I must respect the same freedom of others to choose their associations.

Fair enough, but does 'respecting their associations' entail the legal privilege of marriage? Why can't they just let marriage be since they can live common-law here in Canada?

[Ben Kenobi]

considering the definition of marriage is federal jurisdiction.

Gee, do they have any jurisprudential statements to defend this claim?

I don't see any in the article.

Where does the state have the right to define marriage? Many argue that marriage predates the Charter, and exists outside of the Charter here in Canada. Therefore, marriage cannot be changed by the federal parliament.

States do have the right to decide who gets the legal privileges that marriage gets, but does not get the right to redefine marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would like to see some sort of estimate of the financial impact of this decision for taxpayers.

Redfred:

Without changing the topic, nil. Common law already allows gay couples to reduce their tax burden in the same fashion as married people.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by cinch
Zylka:

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

I'm not too sure, but it does seem that San Francisco somehow slipped on to that map as a supporting "province" while I wasn't looking

[Ben Kenobi]

Shouldn't BC be shaded on your map? Their courts already passed laws regarding homosexual unions before the latest Ontario ruling, so one would think that the province would likely go along with it.

Actually, I thought everyone regarded that map as a joke.

The same court challenge occurred in BC, Ontario and Quebec. In BC and Quebec, the courts rejected the case.

So if we are looking at these two provinces, the court precedent should bar recognising homosexual unions as marriages.

Instead, we see the Federal Government choosing to rule in Ontario's favour, and against the results in Quebec and BC. Any wonder when the Liberals have 100 seats in Ontario?

[Asher]

obiwan: What do you lose from letting gays marry?

Does it tempt you too much or something?

[Zylka]

Ok, I've fixed the data map to give a more accurate portrayal. Asher - wanna come over to my house tonight?

[Agathon]

Obiwan

This legislation benefits you by increasing your freedom. You too now have the power to marry a man.