Canada set to pass Same-Sex Marriage Law

catinthedark · #1 06-28-2005, 03:02 PM

After about two years of debate, laws passed in various provinces allowing same-sex marriage, the federal government will finally put the bill to a vote tonight. And it is expected to pass easily, with most of the governing Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democartic Party members voting in favour, and the Conservative Party most voting against.

I'm so proud of my country.

I don't believe that all gay people must marry, but I think they should be allowed the choice. Undre this law, they will still be able to opt for a civil union, but they can also choose a marriage. The Conservatives' main argument is that it threatens "family values." Honestly, I've never understood how Frank and Joe getting married threatens my getting married. In my opinion, the Conservative argument that it counters family values is hypocritical - they say a family should be two married parents and children. Well... at the moment, gays and lesbians can adopt children in this country. Don't ya tihnk the Conservatives would prefer they be married??

Anyway - vote is tonight. Yay Canada!

KarmaContestant · #2 06-28-2005, 03:05 PM

Yay Canada!

I can't wait to hear what the crotchety old Bu****es have to say about this.

***ThePenguin*** · #3 06-28-2005, 03:06 PM

You should be proud of your country. Unfortunately I don't imagine they'll be passing any such law here in the US any time soon.

-Lis

Sugar · #4 06-28-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catinthedark

I don't believe that all gay people must marry, but I think they should be allowed the choice. Undre this law, they will still be able to opt for a civil union, but they can also choose a marriage. !

What's the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by catinthedark

Anyway - vote is tonight. Yay Canada!

Indeed!

catinthedark · #5 06-28-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar

What's the difference?

Actually, what the law will do is change the current definition of marriage to the union between "two persons" as opposed to "a man and a woman."

I believe, and I could be wrong, that the option for a civil union is there for gays and lesbians who do not want to enter into what they perceive as a heterosexual institution. Which I also applaud. Again, the option of marriage should be there for any and all persons, in my opinion. But there should be an option for gay people who want to legalize their union (and thereby have all the same benefits as any legally recognized couple) but not conform to hetero laws.

Does that make sense? I'm not always the best at explaining things... There's some good information and links here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/

Sugar · #6 06-28-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catinthedark

Actually, what the law will do is change the current definition of marriage to the union between "two persons" as opposed to "a man and a woman."

I believe, and I could be wrong, that the option for a civil union is there for gays and lesbians who do not want to enter into what they perceive as a heterosexual institution. Which I also applaud. Again, the option of marriage should be there for any and all persons, in my opinion. But there should be an option for gay people who want to legalize their union (and thereby have all the same benefits as any legally recognized couple) but not conform to hetero laws.

Does that make sense? I'm not always the best at explaining things... There's some good information and links here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/

So it's all just about the terminology? You hear the same marriage/civil union over here and I always found it hard to believe it was just about the words. But I guess it is...

Just seems like more needless paperwork to me...

DrummerDeanna · #7 06-28-2005, 04:44 PM

Right on Canada!!!

Rochester's Fast Ferry is on track to start running again this week - when it's up and reliable I am SO on it to head to Toronto - I can't WAIT!!!

tynan88 · #8 06-29-2005, 05:25 AM

It is so great Canada is doing this.

I believe heterosexual couples can also have a civil union can't they? It is just something that isn't religious...like a naming day instead of christening isn't it?

BombaySapphire3 · #9 06-30-2005, 05:25 AM

I can't help but feel that part of the reason Canada may be doing this may be to shame their far more puritanical neighbors to the south .The thing is though is that the religious Reich in the U.S. knows no shame.

catinthedark · #10 06-30-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I can't help but feel that part of the reason Canada may be doing this may be to shame their far more puritanical neighbors to the south .The thing is though is that the religious Reich in the U.S. knows no shame.

No. Trust me. We don't pass new major sweeping legislation just to shame the U.S. We have one or two other priorities.

DrummerDeanna · #11 06-30-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

It is so great Canada is doing this.

I believe heterosexual couples can also have a civil union can't they? It is just something that isn't religious...like a naming day instead of christening isn't it?

Well I know that in the U.S. heterosexual couples can do civil unions - some friends of my mom's were in a civil union...

So I'm assuming that in Canada they can too