• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Canada & Gay marriage

Help Support Ranchers.net:

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
I'm just curious: is there a serious divide in public opinion between U.S. and Canada on gay marriage and other social values, or are politicians up north just a bit different?

I'm not trying to upset anybody... seriously. It just seems like the mainstream media presents this cultural divide between the U.S. and Canada, and I'm not sure how real it is.

Like I said: I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I am wondering what you guys think. Officially, I have no opinion, so don't call me names. :???: :?

Consider:

TORONTO - Canada would become only the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage under landmark legislation passed in the House of Commons in spite of fierce opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

The bill would grant same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional unions between a man and a woman, something already legal in a majority of Canadian provinces. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government was also expected to easily pass the Senate and become federal law by the end of July.

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two nations that allow gay marriage nationwide.

Some of Martin's Liberal lawmakers voted against the bill, and a Cabinet minister resigned over the legislation. But enough allies rallied to support the bill that has been debated for months, voting 158 to 133 to approve it on Tuesday evening.

Martin praised Tuesday's vote as a necessary step for human rights.

"We are a nation of minorities," Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights."

There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics.

Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which has led the debate in favor of the law, was triumphant after the vote: "The genius of Canada, almost unparalleled in the world, is built on shared identity, out of respect for each other."

Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled by law to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation, saying that it would harm children in particular.

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, called the vote an "onerous breach of trust and the deconstruction of so much that is dear to our hearts."

Flanked by clergymen, McVety vowed his group would work to vote out lawmakers who supported the legislation in the next general elections.

"This is the beginning of the formal fight against the redefinition of marriage," McVety said. "We will, in the next election, be able to correct this incredible democratic deficit before us today."

The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex legislation would not violate the constitution.

According to most polls, a majority of Canadians support the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., said same-sex American couples applaud Canadians.

"We know that it has been somewhat contentious in Canada, but at the same time the Canadians have largely approached this issue in a rational and democratic way and are providing a very positive model for the rest of the world," Sklar said.

Though hundreds of foreigners have come to Canada to seek civil ceremonies since gay marriages were first allowed in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, not all countries or states recognize the unions.

In the United States, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage and most states refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates from gay and lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed.

___

On the Net:

Canadians for Equal marriage: http://www.equal-marriage.ca

Defend Marriage Canada: http://www.defendmarriagecanada.org
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
"We are a nation of minorities," Martin said. "And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights."

That says it all! When the leader (and I use that term loosely) of your country sees a nation of minorities instead of a nation of CANADIANS and representing their wishes stupid things happen. BC, southern Ontario and Quebec is where the votes along with the least amount of common sense (there are a few exceptions but very few).
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
They sewed it up last night. Now officially Marriage is defined as 'a union of two people to the exclusion of all others'. I don't get how they can change the definition of marriage when the institution of marriage was created by the church. I have been of the opinion that Canada should be broken up. I think Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should go their own way. Seems we don't get heard on anything that we want and as much as the easterners want us to stay in confederation, I think its just so they can keep us under their thumb.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
SASH said:
They sewed it up last night. Now officially Marriage is defined as 'a union of two people to the exclusion of all others'. I don't get how they can change the definition of marriage when the institution of marriage was created by the church. I have been of the opinion that Canada should be broken up. I think Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should go their own way. Seems we don't get heard on anything that we want and as much as the easterners want us to stay in confederation, I think its just so they can keep us under their thumb.

I agree with you SASH,let BMR,Murgen & KD Lang fend for themselves.............good luck
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Sash- " I have been of the opinion that Canada should be broken up. I think Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba should go their own way. "

Yup, Me too!!! If been of that opinion for many years now. Just too many Liberal votes in the urban East for us Western Conservatives to ever have much of a say in anything.
In fact, as soon as it quits raining, I'm gonna go outside and take down my Maple Leaf flag and run a PIRATE flag up the pole!!! :mad:
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,231
Reaction score
461
Location
Big Muddy valley
The reports are that it is mostly Americans and quite a few Texans that are coming to Canada to get married. We are going to clear up our national debt by charging Texas men to marry each other. Hey Haymaker does your partner take off his spurs? :roll: :roll:
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Thanks Haymaker, I must be making an impact on you, if I'm mentioned in your posts.

And just to set the record straight, I didn't vote Liberal, and I don't believe in Gay marriage!
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
626
Reaction score
1
Location
Stratton, Ontario
The Catholic church is a funny bunch. Even though it says in the legislation that no religious denomination will be forced to marry same sex couples, the Catholic church (and I suspect a few others) are scared shitless that they will lose paying members of the congregations who are gay and do not like the tone of the more conservative churches. It will be interesting to see how the Anglican church reacts to this. There is so much in-fighting right now based on this one subject that it is speeding up the process of it's demise in Canada. If they support it, I suspect they will grab a fair percentage of the same sex weddings from the United Church, who is a majority supporter of same sex marriages.
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
626
Reaction score
1
Location
Stratton, Ontario
Taken from the United Church of Canada website:

The United Church of Canada is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. We minister to over 3 million people in 3677 congregations across the country. Ours is a rich history closely entwined with the development of Canada itself.

The United Church was inaugurated on June 10, 1925 in Toronto, Ontario, when the Methodist Church, Canada, the Congregational Union of Canada, and 70 per cent of the Presbyterian Church in Canada entered into an organic union. Joining as well was the small General Council of Union Churches, centred largely in Western Canada. It was the first union of churches in the world to cross historical denominational lines and hence received international acclaim. Impetus for the union arose out of the concerns for serving the vast Canadian northwest and in the desire for better overseas mission. Each of the uniting churches, however, had a long history prior to 1925.


*********

It's about as left-winged as the church can get, lol. It is again in talks with the Anglican Church of Canada to form a union. In Canada, Evangelists and Catholics cover the right wing of the spectrum, the Anglican Church and some of the Presbyterians - the center, and the United Church is on the left.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,231
Reaction score
461
Location
Big Muddy valley
Aaron the Catholics have voted Liberal for years. In western Canada alot of conservatives went to the United churh but it is being run from the east giving it it's liberal veiws. I feel anyways. The UC has lost some support from this family.
 

Denny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
5,624
Reaction score
0
Location
Mn usa
Aaron said:
The Catholic church is a funny bunch. Even though it says in the legislation that no religious denomination will be forced to marry same sex couples, the Catholic church (and I suspect a few others) are scared shitless that they will lose paying members of the congregations who are gay and do not like the tone of the more conservative churches. It will be interesting to see how the Anglican church reacts to this. There is so much in-fighting right now based on this one subject that it is speeding up the process of it's demise in Canada. If they support it, I suspect they will grab a fair percentage of the same sex weddings from the United Church, who is a majority supporter of same sex marriages.

I would bet my last dollar that the catholic church will NEVER accept gay marriges.The rules of the church are set by the Pope and they arent going to bend the rules for some money from some Gays.They can still go to church they wont be able to take communion but who would know if a gay came to our church he would recieve communion unless he told he was gay.But God Will Get Them in the end..
 

Aaron

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
626
Reaction score
1
Location
Stratton, Ontario
BMR, I didn't mean which denominations voted for which political parties, but instead socially what their views are as a church. Over 70% of the UC is in favour of gay marriage. Catholics, on the other hand, are the total opposite. A lot of the younger Catholics are just fooling themselves...very few carry on with all of the traditional Catholic views and standards, but feel the need to identify with some church.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--John Adams
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,231
Reaction score
461
Location
Big Muddy valley
Aaron said:
BMR, I didn't mean which denominations voted for which political parties, but instead socially what their views are as a church. Over 70% of the UC is in favour of gay marriage. Catholics, on the other hand, are the total opposite. A lot of the younger Catholics are just fooling themselves...very few carry on with all of the traditional Catholic views and standards, but feel the need to identify with some church.


I think I know where you are coming from but traditionaly Catholics voted Liberal so that my change. I heard to night the a Bishop won't allow a NDP MP that voted for gay marriages to take part in the church other then attend.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
21
Location
South Central Montana
Cowgal said:
Personally I dislike Liberals and dislike our PM even more.

I've been out of here for awhile, been busy, but couldn't resist responding to this whole issue. We Montanans voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. PERIOD! Guess what though, politicians tried to undo what the majority voted for by going in the "back door". In other words, using another bill to quietly "overthrow" what the majority voted for in Nov of last year. This is one of the very sad things that happen in "gay marriages:

What in the heck is wrong with this picture


>Kids in legal gray area when gay couples split
>By Richard Willing, USA TODAY Tue Jun 21, 7:19 AM ET
>
>
>
>Two women in El Dorado County, Calif., Elisa Maria B. and her domestic
>partner Emily B., decided they wanted a family.
>So when Emily became pregnant by means of a sperm donor and gave birth
to
>twins in 1998, the lesbian couple faced a lifestyle choice. Emily, the
>couple decided, would stay home with the kids, one of whom had Down
>syndrome and required constant care. Elisa would be the breadwinner.
>
>
>
>Court papers omit the women's last names as standard procedure to
protect
>minors in cases about parenthood.
>
>
>
>The couple split up 18 months later. Elisa cut off financial support,
>prompting Emily and her children to go on welfare. El Dorado County
sued
>Elisa for child support, and she refused to pay. Her argument: I'm not
the
>children's father.
>
>
>
>Sometime this summer, the California Supreme Court will rule on the
case of
>Elisa and Emily and two similar appeals. At issue: In same-sex
>relationships, what makes a person a parent? Is it biology, existing
legal
>standards or whether that person acts like a parent?
>
>
>
>If Elisa and Emily had been an unmarried heterosexual couple, their
dispute
>probably would have been resolved already. In California and other
states,
>courts look at how such couples define their relationship to determine
>parentage.
>
>
>
>In California and elsewhere, unmarried same-sex couples that split up
have
>begun asking courts to treat them like heterosexuals in matters of
child
>custody.
>
>
>
>Wide potential impact
>
>
>
>Family law professor Ed Stein of Cardozo Law School in New York City
says
>the three cases are especially important because courts in other
states are
>likely to be guided by California's example.
>
>
>
>The cases come as assisted-reproduction technology becomes more
readily
>available to same-sex couples.
>
>
>
>The 2000 Census found about 92,000 same-sex couples in California. As
of
>December, though, only 29,000 had registered under a state law that
permits
>same-sex couples to enjoy most legal rights available to heterosexual
>couples. The law does not address the parental rights issues raised by
>these cases.
>
>
>
>And the use of assisted-reproduction technology, including donated
sperm,
>in vitro fertilization and donated fertilized eggs, is rapidly
increasing.
>The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>'
>' Disease Control and Prevention reports that 45,751 babies
were
>born through assisted reproduction in 2002 - a 120% increase from the
>20,840 in 1996.
>
>
>
>Similar legal cases are working their way through the courts in Utah,
>Georgia and Washington state. In Colorado last year, a state appellate
>court granted visitation to the former partner of a lesbian who had
adopted
>a baby from China. Courts in New York, Vermont and Pennsylvania have
ruled
>that both partners of same-sex couples who split may be considered
parents.
>
>
>
>"Reproductive technology is running so far ahead of law and policy,"
says
>Emily Doskow, a Berkeley, Calif., attorney who is editor of A Legal
Guide
>for Lesbian and Gay Couples. The California cases, she says, are a
sign
>"the law is trying to keep up."
>
>
>
>Variations in cases
>
>
>
>The California cases, which were argued May 24 before the state
Supreme
>Court in San Francisco, differ in their details:
>
>
>
>? In the case of Elisa B. and Emily B., a trial court agreed that
Elisa is
>not the twins' legal father and has no child-support obligations. A
state
>appeals court reversed that decision and said that Elisa should be
granted
>visitation rights as well as be compelled to help support the
children.
>
>
>
>At the California Supreme Court, Elisa's attorneys cited state law and
an
>earlier appeals court decision involving heterosexual couples to argue
that
>a non-biological partner cannot be considered a parent.
>
>In legal papers, Emily's lawyers pointed out that the couple had named
the
>children as beneficiaries on life insurance policies and had even
shared
>breast-feeding duties. Acting like a parent, they argued, creates
parental
>rights and duties.
>
>? In K.M. v. E.G., a case from Marin County, north of San Francisco, a
>fertilized egg from K.M. was implanted in E.G., who had twins in 1996.
When
>the couple broke up in 2002, E.G. denied K.M. access to the children.
She
>cited a waiver of parental rights K.M. signed when she donated her
egg.
>
>Relying on the waiver, two lower courts held that K.M. is not a legal
>parent. At the state Supreme Court, K.M.'s lawyers argued that how the
>couple lived - both functioning as parents - should trump the waiver.
To
>decide otherwise, K.M.'s lawyer Jill Hersh wrote, would harm the
children.
>
>? In Kristine H. v. Lisa R., a Los Angeles case, one partner in an
>eight-year relationship had a daughter through artificial
insemination.
>Before the girl was born, the birth mother, Kristine, sought and
received a
>court judgment that Lisa was the legal father and that both partners
were
>the parents.
>
>About 21/2 years after the child was born, the couple separated.
Kristine
>asked the court to void the judgment and rule that Lisa had no
visitation
>rights. An appeals court agreed with her. At the state Supreme Court,
>Kristine's attorney, Honey Kessler Amado, argued that she never
intended to
>grant her then-partner full paternity rights.
>
>Lisa's attorneys, Leslie Shear and Diane Goodman, countered that the
court
>judgment and Lisa's subsequent behavior as a parent entitled her to
>visitation.
>
>Adoption not involved
>
>None of the couples in these cases had adopted the children. Courtney
>Joslin, the lawyer for Emily B., says in all three cases, the
children's
>"birth into the world came about because of the intentional conduct of
two
>people" - the partners. "That's what we think is most important here,"
says
>Joslin, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian
Rights.
>
>Stein, of Cardozo Law School, says that argument has a good chance of
>succeeding.
>
>During oral arguments before the state Supreme Court, Stein says, some
>justices seemed convinced that "fairness" requires them to extend
parental
>rights to gay, non-biological partners. Other justices, Stein says,
seemed
>to believe that extending parental rights strengthens families and
better
>protects children.
>
>"The (legal principle) here is that the reality of a relationship is
>determined by its functionality," Stein says. "That's a direction in
which
>the law, generally speaking, is headed."

This is so sick.
>
>



_________________
Hanta Yo
 

Latest posts

Top