Same-Sex Marriage
June 3rd, 2006 | by MadHacktress |Accompanying articles:
Commons to revisit same-sex vote
Many Tories wary about 2nd gay-marriage vote
Gay couples take marriage fight to NY’s top court
Bush promoting ban on gay marriage
Same sex marriage… well, what can a person say, really, that the hardline conservatives haven’t said better. It’s unnatural, it’s unethical, it’s sacreligious, it’s basically just a really bad thing.
So that’s how we know that it must be allowed.
Seriously though, a number of nations of the world - Canada included - have passed legislation that legalizes same-sex unions (civil, marriage or whatever - it doesn’t really matter) and have not yet succumbed due to their actions. Maybe it’s impending? I’ve got to stop holding my breath soon.
In February of 2004 a poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were in favour of a ban on same-sex marriage. A poll down a few weeks ago shows that number down by ten percent (10% - ironical). Obviously as the debate wears on more and more people realize that it’s just not that big of a deal.
Our House of Commons is intending to vote on the reopening of the issue that was, I though, decided by the vote on Bill C-38. I guess I was wrong. I don’t disagree that, from time to time, old laws should be looked at, discussed and their relevance tested in the contemporary context - but, people, this bill was made in to law less than two years ago. Give it a chance. What new data is there to bring out at this stage of the game? None.
Stephen Harper’s proposed vote won’t even be about the bill itself. He intends to ask of the political movers and shakers in parliament whether or not they think that the debate should be reopened. This “vote” will, of course, go through rounds of debate itself and I hope at some point someone stands up, shakes his head slowly while removing his glasses, kind of wipes his arm across his forehead and says, “people do you realize what we’re doing? We’re debating whether or not we should have a debate that… we already had.” That’s our legislative process at work ladies and gents.
South of the border the hardliners are pushing forward with a no-win bill that, at most, is going to get a few more butts of the couch on Election Day in November. A federal constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage is a preposterous notion. Even getting 67 votes in the Senate is going to be damned near impossible. Even if it managed to squeek through the federal legislative process there is still the ratification of the amendment by 38 states before it actually gets added to the nations highest document of law. Sorry boys, it ain’t gunna happen.
Call it what you want: unethical, unnatural, sacreligious… it’s here, it’s queer, get used to it.
I have always been a civil libertarian at heart… maybe that makes me just a really bad thing, but it’s me. I don’t get people who want to keep other people down, or remove their rights and freedoms. I don’t know how people can pontificate about being the great dispenser of liberation and freedom to the world, and yet, look at a long-time, committed couple in love and say, “sorry, only one penis per household.”
So, wow… what’s next on the agenda… oh, maybe Iran! :)
Entry Filed under: General, In The News, Pure Opinion
I tend not to reply to your live journal posts cause they are usually way over my head anyway but just throwing in my two cents here.
As far as the term “marriage” goes, the way I was taught is that its a religious sacriment so the government should not really have any say in this. A “marriage” as seen by the government should be classified differently to prevent confusion over the issue as well as it would likely reduce the debates over it. I am not against same sex marriage per say, only the classification of it as being a marriage since this could be seen as against religious factions. Maybe a better term would be the legally bonding of two people as seen by the government.
I mean if the government can say that two non-same sex non-related people that live together in the same location for more then 6 months is considered a common-law husband or wife with the same responsibilities as a full marriage then there are some real issues with the way the government sees the joining of two people in general.
Anyway this could be a very touchy subject for a lot of people but it shouldn’t be. Done my little rant :)
Ah, but what about religion groups that support same-sex marriage? There isn’t a united stance among every religious group in Canada over whether a same-sex marriage is lawful or not.
Anyway, my point is that the job of the government of Canada is not to adopt the conventions of any religion for social institutions, including marriage, when the government job is to serve all Canadians. For example, people from Judeo-Christian religions would say the Ten Commandments are pretty important laws to follow. But you won’t see them in Canadian lawbooks. Similarly, the definition of many religions of marriage - as a sacred union between a man and a woman - isn’t that of every marriage in Canada.
Allow religious groups to refuse to perform marriages they don’t believe in. Fine. But there are many opposite-sex marriages that don’t have a religious element to them. Their marriages are solely about a relationship being recognized by the law. So that means there are already marriages out there that don’t conform to religious standards, because they’re not “sacred.” Similarly, while a particular religion may not sanction same-sex marriages itself, it doesn’t mean that the government can’t recognize them as legal and important, and in the eyes of the government, just the same as any other legal marriage in Canada.
Actually, if the marriage amendment squeaks through Congress, I’m almost positive it will get ratified. There are already 39 states, at least, that have passed laws against same-sex marriage. I can probably name the states that would ratify such an amendment. This is the same puritanical, self-righteous attempt at behaviour modification that led to the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). Also on the agenda is yet another attempt at an amendment to ban flag-desacration (and that would be only the US flag, of course). The GOP is out to hit all of their social panic buttons so that in October they can run ads about this evil Democrat or that one who voted for gay-marriage and against America.
Iran is off the table until after the election. Notice how they’re talking a good game with Iran, but they’re also setting impractical conditions (like demanding that Iran give up their enrichment program as a pre-requisite to talks on allowing them to use nuclear power)? They don’t want war until after November, but they don’t want to resolve the issue, and they don’t want it to look like they’re trying to provoke a war, either. They know that a war before November sweeps them out of office. They know that making it look like they’re trying to be reasonable will make people think every possible step has been taken before going to war. But they have no intention to do anything other than go to war.
I have a friend in Oshawa who is very intent on pleading with me to apply for residence in Canada. I’m hesitant, because signs that the Democrats could overturn the GOP this year are hopeful. I don’t want to give up on the US just yet. But it gets harder with each election when you feel like the people just can’t be that stupid this time, and yet they prove themselves dumber than ever.