And so it begins: Same-sex marriage law tabled federally in Canada

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes. Your point?

Wasn't you who argued that I should be more pragmatic in supporting a party that agrees with me on some issues, though not all of them?

You've got me. So you are throwing in with the Conservatives?

[monolith94]

Honestly now asher...



Do you really want to give this man the right to adopt children???

[Voltaire]

Since we're on the topic of adoption and who should have a right to adopt, that raises the interesting question of who should have the right to have children in the first place. Clearly some people who do have children should't have them, there ought to be some screening process before you can have a child, maybe get a licence. I mean you need a licence to drive a car and own a gun, and yet not to have and raise a child?

[Alexander's Horse]

gays can get themselves legally declared turnips for all I care

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by SpencerH
US common law does derive from English common law and presumably from Anglo-Saxon law. Given the basis for the foundation of this country i.e. christian zealots seeking religious freedom I would argue that the basis of the marriage (in particular) and morality laws in the USA is christianity (even if you could provide evidence written in anglo-saxon that stated marriage was between one man and one woman). Although I'd be interested in such evidence I doubt that you can do so.

No, the basis of law in the United States is Anglo-Saxon common law, which is based on the custom and practices of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, prior to their proselytization by either Celtic or Roman Christian missionaries.


The fact that a variety of Christian separatist zealots established colonies on the eastern seaboard of what is now the modern day United States does not stop the law they operated under and were subject to, from being derived from non-Christian Anglo Saxon common law. Morality is not law, and 'influencing' or otherwise does not change the basis of that law. It also has no bearing on secular marriage.

The United States was not founded as a 'Christian' country- the experience of sectarian strife in the original colonies had presumably taught the Founding Fathers where that kind of establishment inevitably led.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all manoeuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

Thomas Jefferson letter to Elbridge Gerry dated 1799.

On religious toleration and political liberty:

" And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions....

...error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it....

I deem the essential principles of our government....

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; ... freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected."

Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address, on 4th March 1801

and the Treaty of Tripoli where it is explicitly laid out:

" As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ..."

Article 11, of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797

"Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

John Adams ratifies the Treaty of Tripoli .

From: Hunter Miller, 'Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America', Vol. 2, (1776-1818), publ. 1931


Anglo-Saxon marriage and culture:

" The role of women.

Anglo-Saxon society was decidedly patriarchal, but women were in some ways better off than they would be in later times. A woman could own property in her own right. She could and did rule a kingdom if her husband died. She could not be married without her consent and any personal goods, including lands, that she brought into a marriage remained her own property. If she were injured or abused in her marriage her relatives were expected to look after her interests."

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/anglo-saxon_life-kinship_and_lordship.htm

[Straybow]

Just a few collected thoughts as I read

NDP Leader Jack Layton ordered his members to support the legislation, saying a human rights issue is no place for a free vote.

If the NDP wants to be a benign dictatorship that really does require a change to the Charter.

Bringing polygamy into the gay marriage debate isn't valid. Gay marriage is between two individuals, thus invalidating the polygamy issue as relevant to this debate.

First, any redefinition of one constituent of marriage invites any redefinition of marriage. Once the camel gets its nose into the tent the rest is sure to follow (to cite the ancient fable). Courts in the US, Canada, and Europe just can't resist activism in restructuring of society to suit their enlightened whims, so once the smallest precedent is carried to Supreme Court level there is no stopping it at any point until society moves forcefully against it.

Second, polygamy is also between two individuals. Each woman is married to only one man. The wives aren't married to each other and have no rights or priveleges involving each other. They don't have to get along (as was the case in some famous stories). They don't have to live together, or even in the same town. Technically they don't even have to know each other beyond public record of the marriages.

In the West we have toyed with whether polygamy is permitted within the bounds of an evolving culture. From the era of Christian Rome and late into the middle ages multiple wives and concubines were unofficially permitted (varying place to place) in that they were not expressly outlawed.

Whether polygamy or concubinage is or is not permitted requires no change in the historical concept or definition of marriage. Homosexual marriage has never been accepted, not even in cultures where homosexual love was considered enlightened and socially superior to heterosexual love.

Our marriage laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs i.e. 'one man and one woman'. IMO, once you reject the law to allow gay marriage you reject it outright and as a consequence must allow other types of marriage.

The tie to Judeo-Christian doctrine is cultural, not legal. The "two being one flesh" is unique to Judeo-Christianity and was largely academic for most of history except as a tool for domination. In most of Christendom (indeed, most of the world) women were chattel with almost no legal status except as heirs to their husbands' estates. In many cultures wives remain closer to their historical status as chattel. In India there are still cases of wives being tortured and even murdered when her family fails to deliver a dowry. I don't think that's the kind of marriage homosexuals are fighting for.

In any case, our laws regarding marriage are more closely linked to Roman Law and Germanic common law than to the "one flesh" ideal expressed in religion. You may find the phrase popping up in some state laws on marriage, but certainly for common law it plays no part whatsoever.

The law in North America (outside of Louisiana) is based on Anglo-Saxon common law.

Ah, I see somebody made that point already.

Do you agree that homosexuals should enjoy the benefits of civil unions? That means rights to property, default powers of attourney, shared pensions etc.

Actually I feel such matters should be more loosely defined. For example, my brother and I are both unmarried. Why should we not be able to live, hold property, and share benefits including insurance and pensions together? Why should such priveleges be assigned uniquely to marriage or even civil union?

Just as a will can dispose of testator's property in death in almost any way imaginable so should disposition of property in life be less restricted. We are increasingly treating employment benefits as de facto property of the employee. This is a matter that can be implemented without redefining marriage or even civil union.

Hell if a gay couple is allowed to adopt children why cant they marry as well?

Gay couples, by legal definition, do not exist. In those situations only one person is the legal parent.

There are tons of kids who need adopting and not nearly enough "traditional" couples to do so. In that case, it's simply criminal not to allow couples outside that norm to adopt, so long as a social worker can reasonably determine the couple can provide a loving home.

Not true. The primary barrier to adoption is the legal and institutional expenses involved, not shortage of willing parents.

As for the second, Christians are probably the most tolerant people you will ever meet. They may disagree with you, but that disagreement doesn't mean hating you as a person. Tolerance means you put up with something you disagree with.

No, Christians are usually the most polite, but horribly intolerant people out there. They oppress the private rights of those they disagree with based on their own moral values, but do so with a smile and say it's for our best.

Yes, just as you say it is for our best to accept and condone homosexual behavior. I should point out that under Canadian law expressing historic Christian doctrine against homosexuality can be prosecuted as a hate crime whereas expressing hatred for Christians or Christianity is protected speach. BK is correct. You are confusing "tolerance" with "permissiveness," and somehow the terms pot and kettle come to mind.

Religion has everything to do with this.

I can't think of one group opposed to gay marriage that's not religious.

Yes, because every other group paints themselves into a corner trying to define morality apart from religion and tradition. It always comes down to "do what feels good at the moment unless somebody can prove harm to our satisfaction."

What I'm trying to get across is that the right wing has usurped the slippery slope argument and is using it as though its a bad thing.

Usurped? Or rather "applied consistently." We argue against legalization of narcotics on this basis. We argue against ever-declining age of consent. Many moral issues fit the "slippery slope" category to some degree.

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


I think the point he's making is that it opens up the definition of marriage and makes it unclear what will be included in the new one...

I'm all for it though

yes, that is what I was referring to. Sheesh, some people should cut down on their sugar intake.

[Asher]

Re: Just a few collected thoughts as I read

Originally posted by Straybow
Yes, just as you say it is for our best to accept and condone homosexual behavior. I should point out that under Canadian law expressing historic Christian doctrine against homosexuality can be prosecuted as a hate crime whereas expressing hatred for Christians or Christianity is protected speach. BK is correct. You are confusing "tolerance" with "permissiveness"

I am doing no such thing -- I say it is for your best to mind your own business and stop passing laws to justify your morals. I'm more than content to allow you guys your religious freedoms, even if I ever so strongly disagree with them.

I ask that you tolerate my sexuality and allow me the same benefits as any other couple.

Yes, because every other group paints themselves into a corner trying to define morality apart from religion and tradition. It always comes down to "do what feels good at the moment unless somebody can prove harm to our satisfaction."

The Christians are the ones painting themselves in the corner by defining morality by different interpretations of old books...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, kids just want parents, and you're the one seeking to deny them that. There is an overflow of kids in foster homes and orphanages in this country.

Really? You should start exporting - many rich countries have more would-be adoptive parents than kids for adoption (particularly healthy, Caucasian children, which I figure Canada should have a high percentage of). The would-be parents are frequently willing to lay out very considerable sums to get to adopt a child too.

[Brundlefly]

Marriage is overrated. Sex with the same person for the rest of your life? No thanks..

[Giancarlo]

Re: Just a few collected thoughts as I read

Originally posted by Straybow

Second, polygamy is also between two individuals. Each woman is married to only one man. The wives aren't married to each other and have no rights or priveleges involving each other. They don't have to get along (as was the case in some famous stories). They don't have to live together, or even in the same town. Technically they don't even have to know each other beyond public record of the marriages.

You aren't paying attention. This is still more then two people. Additionally, I don't think it is relevant to this argument at all. Gay marriage is in no way similiar to polygamy. I hate it when you christian fundamentalists love bringing it up in the argument. I see so many strawman attacks.

Homosexual marriage has never been accepted, not even in cultures where homosexual love was considered enlightened and socially superior to heterosexual love.

This is a new century and a new era of tolerance and acceptance. And what about the crusades? As long as we are bringing up history, why not bring up that? Is that representative of christianity? Because afterall, you are saying intolerance is representative of humanity based on history. I do not agree. Gay marriage will eventually be accepted and allowed in the United States.

Gay couples, by legal definition, do not exist. In those situations only one person is the legal parent.

But in reality, gay couples certainly do exist and legally, yes they do in many states. I find your discriminatory attitude quite repulsive.

\Yes, because every other group paints themselves into a corner trying to define morality apart from religion and tradition. It always comes down to "do what feels good at the moment unless somebody can prove harm to our satisfaction."

So you are saying what christianity and religion says is proper morality? I'm atheist, and I'm just as moral as any christian. Morality isn't part of religion or tradition for many people. I hate to knock you on the head for that one, but I really have to. But you christians like to argue your own form of twisted morality for the rest of us.. we'd appreciate if you not tell us how to live.

We argue against ever-declining age of consent..

Really? 18 is the age of consent in the United States. Same age that you can enlist and serve in the military.. same age you are considered independent.. there is nothing wrong with that. What do you want the age of consent at? 25?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Religion has everything to do with this.

I can't think of one group opposed to gay marriage that's not religious.

*cough*

I would extend EQUAL rights yesterday, but not marriage, and I am very far from religious.

Equal does not necessarily mean the same. Men and women share equal rights under the law but in most minds they are definitely NOT the same.

Staybow - Best post of the thread. Thanx.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

You know I have not thought about this before but it just hit me. Tubes and i never had a legal cermony for our marriage. I have taken his name after living together for a while and formed a common law bond in which case divorce would be needed if we split. However he has me on all of his insurance and stuff nobody has asked whether im male or female,since my first name is staci im not sure if they assume i am female since stacy is a mans name too. I dont always use his last name either my drivers license is in my maiden name as is my social security card.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
*cough*

I would extend EQUAL rights yesterday, but not marriage, and I am very far from religious.

Equal does not necessarily mean the same. Men and women share equal rights under the law but in most minds they are definitely NOT the same.

Giving equal rights would constitute allowing gays to marry their partners, just like straights can marry their partners.

You can't give equality if one has privledges the other does not.

[Ben Kenobi]

What a horrible thing to say.

Have you actually investigated cases of deaf parents? You may not have the devotion to raising a child to do such a thing, but that in no way means other such couples do not.

Boris, I am close to being deaf. And I'll be the first one to say that if both myself and my wife were deaf, that I wouldn't want to adopt a child. I could not hear a crying child in the same room as me, let alone, a baby monitor.

You ask me about what it was like to raise a child, and I show you my dad who has somewhat better hearing than I do. He abhorred having to listen for us during the night, and if mom was not going to be home, would often have us stay with our grandparents, simply because he couldn't hear us.

I've seen some of what he's struggled with. It has nothing to do with the devotion, but more about the safety.

Boris, I can't even hear a fire alarm. How would I make sure, if I was the only one in the house, that my kids would get out in time?

Sure, there are challenges. But there are challenges to any child-rearing situation. Should poor people be prevented from having a child just because the ideal environment for child rearing is one of middle class comfort?

There's a difference between having a child, and between adopting one. To regulate the first, infringes upon our liberties, while the second does not.

There are tons of kids who need adopting and not nearly enough "traditional" couples to do so. In that case, it's simply criminal not to allow couples outside that norm to adopt, so long as a social worker can reasonably determine the couple can provide a loving home.

There are tons of kids, and tons of couples out there who want these children and give up because they are frusterated by the red tape thrown in their faces.