Tuesday, December 05, 2006

What is marriage?

O.K. This is your fair warning to turn the channel if you don't want your blood pressure to rise. I guarantee that the following remarks are going to get the PC crowd gnashing their teeth.

Red Tory is puzzling over "That Marriage Thingee". He maintains that:

The fact of the matter is that it’s a crass means of splitting property and dividing assets and its legacy only extends a scant few hundred years back to Medieval times. There’s absolutely nothing sacred about it at all whatsoever.


I asked him:

"If marriage is indeed just a contract, and a crass means of splitting property and dividing assets, why is the term "civil union" not good enough, when it would confer the same legal advantages?"


But I already know the answer to that. It would not help the gay activists to "normalize" homosexuality in society in general, which is after all the real issue - not marriage and not human rights.


Personally, I would like to see the words "civil union" applied to all legal civil commitments rather than the word "marriage" - straight or gay or whatever. Although adoption concerns are still problematic for some folks, I believe that the 'M-word' is still the main source of friction. Perhaps we could finally put this baby to bed if we made a semantic change.

What did you just say? Words don't carry meaning? Think "Nation" and then tell me that again.

Couples could get their civil union duly recognized by whatever secular means the State defines, and then opt for a religious ceremony in their own church afterwards if that is their wish.

Why wouldn't that work? I think it would be a great compromise, and then just maybe we could get on with other things.

Let's get the nation's bedrooms out of the business of the State. Right, Pierre?


53 comments:

Riley Hennessey said...

I wouldn't be against civil-unions, but I do wish we'd just pick a decision, stick with it, and then work to strengthen the foundations of marriage permanently.

I am a firm believer that we have to take marriage seriously, whether its between two members of the same sex, or two members of the opposite sex. Not only cause I think children benefit from a two parent family, two parent income and the stability which comes along from that... but because marriage means responsibility.

Responsibility for your actions to your spouse, responsibility to your children and responsibility to your community.

In my opinion, we should stop fighting over who SHOULD get married, and start concentrating on restoring the importance of responsibility in marriage. I see too many people throwing the word around, getting married for six months, or getting married two or three times, or coasting through life doing whatever pleases themselves.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with divorce, a single mother, a single father, or two-common-law people... but I am saying that it doesn't matter who marries who, as long as those who are getting married realize the responsibility involved in the act. It's not just about a religious right, it's about a duty to your spouse and the family you create. I think not enough people focus on that.

Paulie said...

I totally agree Joanne. Take the government out of the marriage business. The government can provide a civil union, but if you want to be married go to a church! I agree that the semantics seem to be very important. Lets take this power out of the debate.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Awesome, Paulie! Now we just have to start some kind of advocacy group here...

Attila said...

"I wouldn't be against civil-unions, but I do wish we'd just pick a decision, stick with it, and then work to strengthen the foundations of marriage permanently.
"

Riley, it's kind of difficult to strengthen the foundations of marriage after you just finished destroying them, wouldn't you say?

In my opinion the gov't got into the marriage business for a simple reason. To provide financial incentive (tax benefits) for people to build families and have children. The family is the fundamental unit of society and every western country needs to build its population - preferably from within.
This is why I believe that SSM is wrong. It goes against all of these ideas. If marriage means everything, it means nothing. If you can get the same tax benefits from sharing an appartment with your room-mate, why marry? If you know you're going to get divorced anyway because society has no respect for marriage, why have kids? To strengthen marriage, I believe you to strengthen the family and I'm glad that the current gov't seems to be considering ways to do just that.

Shane said...

I agree with some of the above - I hold the libertarian position on marriage - the government should have zero say in who gets married and who doesn't.

If the government wants to provide support and taxation benefits, and encourage lifetime partnership to raise those young to be the best citizens possible, then by all means, create a "civil union". But don't tell me that you are going to redefine "marriage" which has always had ties to whatever religion predominates a culture - whether that is Native American, Christian, Hindu, or whatever. Marriage has a religious meaning, not a secular meaning, and the government only has business there if there is not a clear separation of church and state.

So for all those liberals who want a separation of church and state, get a grip and realize you can't have it both ways. If you want the state out of the church business, quit asking the state to stick its nose into church business!

Jay said...

It would not help the gay activists to "normalize" homosexuality in society in general

-------------------------------------

Joanne, I finally see your true colours. Previously posing your 1 of your very few topics as trying to figure out if its nature or nurture. Just confused. So sad and conflicted. boo hoo

But now you think my existence is not normal.

Your true colours come through finally, just another bigot.

Gormless asshat is a compliment for such a sick twisted monster like yourself.

gimbol said...

Jay:

What equivalence is there to a gay union and a heterosexual one?

I can think of only one.

Therein lies the difference, a union for the purpose of procreation and raising children under one roof, or legitimizing a couples conjugal relationship.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It would not help the gay activists to "normalize" homosexuality in society in general, which is after all the real issue - not marriage and not human rights.

Gay activists are attempting to "normalize" society right now through education and media. You probably see that as some kind of necessary mass education.

Do I think homosexual behaviour is "normal"? I suppose that would depend on your definition of normal, Jay.

Obviously you don't think I'm "normal". You think I'm a Gormless asshat courtesy of Red Tory, and a sick twisted monster. But it's o.k. for you to call me names, because the only PC disadvantaged group that I belong to is the female one.

So does that make you a sexist?

Aloysius P. said...

If Stephane Dion thinks same-sex marriage is human rights issue, he should complain to his President, Jacques Chirac. France has civil unions defined separately from marriage.

Anonymous said...

The only reason people who are for civil unions but against same-sex marriage is because God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is religion coming into play in a government decision? My religion states that marriage is between a dog and a dog, does that mean the government should recognize that? I think to most of you the answer is no, only because that's not your religion. If churches don't want to perform same-sex marriages that's fine, but the government cannot be so exclusionary.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If Stephane Dion thinks same-sex marriage is human rights issue, he should complain to his President, Jacques Chirac.

Oo-oo.. Nice one!!

My religion states that marriage is between a dog and a dog

I could make a Belinda joke here, but I won't.

jeff davidson said...

joanne, homosexuality is normal behaviour and understanding that has EVERYTHING to do with human rights.

Jay said...

So, my cousin who is married but can't have children should have her marriage annulled? What about couples after menopause. Are they useless now and should have their marriages annulled?

You guys treat marriage like some sort of birthing contract. What about couples who adopt? Are they fit to be married or is it only straight couples who adopt.

You guys are so all over the place your arguments are moot.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

homosexuality is normal behaviour

What is your definition of "normal"?

Cherniak_WTF said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cherniak_WTF said...

Normal as in a certain % of the population prefers to have relationships with people of the same sex.
Normal as in it's perfectly acceptable and there is nothing "icky" about it.
Normal as kids see nothing wrong with homosexuality, it's the adults that infuse the debate with taboo and their own insecurities about their sexuality.

Now where is my "Jesus was a fag t-shirt"?

Anonymous said...

A good point, that civil unions would a great compromise because marriage belongs to the church. The only problem is that there are some religions willing to perform same-sex marriages. Let's remember that we can't just take the Judeo-Christian view on the subject, but even if we did, there are some denominations within it that are also willing to perform the marriage.

It's interesting that so many Christians are stuck on one specific passage of whom marriage is between. It's a notable one, I might add. But what about all the other facets of Christianity; compassion, acceptance, brotherhood, sacrifice, etc.?

Homosexuals are a group of people that deal with enough negativity, oppression, bias and everything else and I find it difficult to believe that so many Christians, the people who claim to follow the path the Christ, the most loving person in human history and who would reach out to anyone no matter who they were, would push for further social and systemic oppression on already beaten group.

Cherniak_WTF said...

marriage belongs to the church
marriage |ˈmarij| noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. • a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. • a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage. • figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel. 2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

FYI - My original post used the phrase "to normalize" as in the sociological sense.

Some of you have taken that to mean "not normal", which was actually not my orginial intent. The word "normal" certainly is relative to time and culture.

drowning in flame said...

''Perhaps we could finally put this baby to bed if we made a semantic change. Why wouldn't that work? I think it would be a great compromise, and then just maybe we could get on with other things.''

That is a great compromise. But the question that should be answered is, if the only issue is one of semantics, why are social cons so bent out of shape over it? Could it be that they hide their bigotry behind the semantic argument, that they really oppose the fact of gay unions, that they are actually against equality for gays, but can't come right out and say it?

Anonymous said...

Joanne:

Only one problem ... the Constitution recognises marriage as a Dominion Government responsbility. So, you would need to alter the Constitution (potentially) to accomplish your goals. Not an easy feat in Canada - as we have seen.

"Section 91(26) gives the federal government power over divorce and marriage. On this basis, Parliament can legislate laws related to marriage and divorce. However, the provinces retain the power over the solemnization of marriage (section 92(12))."

Sorry to be a stickler ...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Aeneas. I guess I will have to take this back to committee...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Riley, thanks for your comments BTW. Wise words indeed. Not always easy to live up to.

TrustOnlyMulder said...

I just wonder why after working so hard to be different and stand out in every way imaginable, gays would want to settle for the same old term that applies to the union of a man and woman.

Why don't they use the term parriage? (or pairage?)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Good point, Mulder. Rather ironic that they would like to be so conventional.
Who knew?

Pairrage, eh? Maybe that could be the new word for civil pairings for everyone.

As in, "We just got pairried last week!" Nah, too close to partridge. Or porridge. Back to the drawing board.

Bill Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bill Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

To Bill Fisher: Was there a reason that you copied & pasted the entire post and comments, without one of your own? Twice?

Don said...

Once you completely remove the possibility of creating a family from marriage what you are doing is saying that conjugal relationships are of greater value than platonic relationships between two close individuals. That is, once you state that marriage is disconnected from children and that it is simply a union of two committed people in a conjugal relationship - as must be the case with the move to SSM as in all cases it is not possible for two individuals of the same sex to have sex and have children as a possible outcome - you are elevating erotic love above all other types of love.

Previously the basis of the legal rights enjoyed by married couples was based on the fact that it was in the best interests of the children in the family, but that argument does not hold with SSM. Of course not all married couples had children either through infertility or by choice, but in most cases marriages also resulted in children and thus the original reason for the legal rights accorded to married couples. No such similar situation exists in SSM, as procreation (such a clinical word!) is only possible between opposite sexes.

Therefore, if people in committed erotic relationships are due a whole raft of legal rights simply because they are in a committed conjugal relationship, why should those same rights not be accorded to individuals who share their lives together, but not in a conjugal sense?

I guess this all gets back to what people think marriage really is all about - a question my MP Stephen Owen did not answer when he responded to my e-mail him about my concerns regarding SSM - and the fact that our own wants and desires take precedence over those of children. That recognition of children's concerns is why France decided it could not change the definition of marriage.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Don, really interesting discussion there.

Therefore, if people in committed erotic relationships are due a whole raft of legal rights simply because they are in a committed conjugal relationship, why should those same rights not be accorded to individuals who share their lives together, but not in a conjugal sense?

This has been my argument all along - Why can't same-sex siblings get married now, in order to enjoy those same benefits if they are co-habiting?

I believe there is such a case in Britain where two spinster sisters are challenging the civil union law because they think it is unfair.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Actually, Don, this might shoot down your theory that homosexuals can't procreate - Lebians anyway... (But who's your Daddy?)

ellie said...

Since I was invited. I cannot seriously catch up on the debate here, but will comment on what I believe.
I am American, so it might be different here. I am a firm believer in God, when my brother came to me and said he was gay, I was devestated. But after the initial shock, I thought, how can God turn away someone that was so beautiful b/c he was gay. My advise to Phil, first things out of my mouth "Don't forget about Love". I think my reasoning was b/c Gays have long been portrayed as "free" and degenerate. But when it hits home you must look at it differently. My brother is an intelligent young man that is so political and intelligent, why should he be denied the basic rights married couples are should he find love? B/c of the church, I would believe that cival unions would be more socially acceptable and Gays should be entitled to insurance benefits of their partners. So many of our children remain unadopted and there are so many loving "normal" gay couples out there willing to adopt them. What is so wrong about 'love'? What is so wrong about committed couples wanting to make a life together but being penalized financially b/c they are gay? I also have 2 cousins that are gay. Both wonderful people with goals for a future. Not at all the old national portrayal of gays. Not every one is religous but b/c so and so is Catholic and I'm presbyterian doesn't mean I can't marry them and be entitled to the same benefits as same religon marriages. We can turn a blind eye to so much in this world, why can't we turn a blind eye to this? It all comes down to the fact that, if all you looked at were the last names on the marriage certificate, you wouldn't see, male, female, black, white, young, old....you would see a couple ready to commit to a life time of love together-that shouldn't be so hard.

ellie said...

I must say this...there really is no definition of the word "normal" anymore. I think that indivisuals make up their own definitions based on what is comfortable to them...but really it no one else's business about how other people live thier life. And the comment that marriage is about procreation is absurd. I must ask the person who made it, how old are you? It would explain the thinking. Different ways for different eras.

The next time you look at your wife, or partner, do you think you will see a baby making machine, or your other half? I think we all know the answer to that. Michael is the air I breath, to deny me that would destroy me. To deny any one that or to even put a label on it....it's all out of hand to me.

Sara said...

marriage is love, not a piece of paper... that is my reality anyways...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ellie, thanks for stopping by. You obviously feel very strongly about this, and rightly so.

I'm going to give your comments some thought and address them later.

Sara, sounds like you & Red had a run-in! I sure know what that's like.

ellie said...

I just know what I would want for myself, and just b/c my brother is Gay, doesn't mean he should be treated any different. I bet if you met him, at first you wouldn't even know. It is hard for me to be a Republican sometimes b/c we have a president that doesn't support even cival union, but the vice presidents daughter is openly gay and in a commited relationship and currently pregnant. I bet there were a few that thought change might be on the horizon b/c of that. But there is a line drawn in the sand republicans on one side, and democrats on the other, nevermind that nowadays our beliefs have crossed the line then come back again only to cross on another subject.
b/c of this post I called my brother to ask what he thought, unfortunatly he wasn't home, but my sister shared her thoughts. She said that If the ceremony is performed in a church b4 God it should be considered a marriage, and if your gay and lucky enough to find a church to perform the ceremony, you shouldn't be treated any differently. If the ceremony is done in a court house, or by a judge, then it should be a cival union b/c it was performed by the courts...no matter who got married, straight or gay.

Thank you for taking the time to consider your response.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If the ceremony is done in a court house, or by a judge, then it should be a cival union b/c it was performed by the courts...no matter who got married, straight or gay.

That's interesting, Ellie. I'm starting to feel that the church should get out of civil marriage altogether. After the definition of marriage changed in Canada, there was some talk about that among Catholic priests here, but nothing came of it.

I'll have to ponder all this a bit more, but I really appreciate your comments and your respectful tone. It is so refreshing to be discussing this with someone who doesn't call me a bigot, homophobe or female body part! Thank you.

Gabby in QC said...

Why I oppose SSM:
I'm sure many, like me, are suffering from SSM fatigue. Nevertheless, here are some reasons why I'm STILL opposed to SSM:

REASON 1:
Those who favour SSM refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, section 15, which deals with Equality Rights, does not include sexual orientation as a basis for "equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." The interpretation to include sexual orientation was added by "activist judges."

Some do not acknowledge that there are "activist judges" who bring down decisions based on their own political agenda. However:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia
«The Constitution Act of 1982 significantly changed the role of the Supreme Court. The Constitution Act entrenched into the Constitution a document called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guaranteed individual liberties and group rights. Following the passage of the Constitution Act of 1982, the Supreme Court interpreted the new charter as overturning the theory of parliamentary sovereignty, which had given precedence to the popular will expressed by legislatures. ...

... In decisions following the passage of the charter, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the charter should be given a large and liberal interpretation and that the government’s parliamentary and executive powers were subject to judicial review. In doing so, the Court rejected its earlier conservatism.

After 1985 the Supreme Court became increasingly activist.»

I therefore still maintain that, since sexual orientation was NOT explicitly included in the original text, and since gays and lesbians ARE protected under the other categories - "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" - the Charter should not have been used to push forward the gay and lesbian agenda.

REASON 2:
SSM is part of the agenda of a very militant segment of the gay and lesbian community. I do not appreciate the methods used by such lobby groups as Equal Marriage to impose their will on MPs by threatening them. If there are any doubts about some lobby groups' tactics, visit this site:
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/Liberal_thaw.htm

There you will read the following:
«We told Scott [Lib. Andy Scott, then chair of the parliamentary justice committee] that we would speak directly to the Canadian public through speeches, public appearances, interviews, and the various outlets for our writing. We said we would use all of our resources and opportunities to denounce the Liberal party's ongoing fight against our rights. • We promised to be his "worst friend" until we saw the Liberal government abandon their case against us in court and move towards recognizing our rights. Then we would be his "best friend", we promised.• ...

Since it appears that the Liberal party is finally beginning to stand down from their fight against equal marriage, we too will, as promised, begin to change our position. • We're prepared to become friends with the Liberal party.•»

If that isn't intimidation, I don't know what is.

REASON 3:
Again, it's a question of the tactics used by those in favour of SSM that I find appalling.
Read the following found here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb18.htm
«2003-JUN-12: Justice Committee recommends acceptance of SSM: The House of Commons' Justice Committee held a secret meeting. According to the Toronto Star: "Emotions on the justice committee ran high yesterday after months of hearings on the issue and days of closed-door meetings, where members have tried unsuccessfully to hammer out a report." Svend Robinson, a Member of Parliament (MP) from New Democratic Party, who is gay, introduced a motion recommending that the government not appeal the JUN-10 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. According to Focus on the Family Canada:
Eight members: (five Liberal members, one NDP member and two members from the Bloc Québécois) supported the motion.
Eight members (four each from the Liberal and Alliance parties) were opposed. There was no representative present from the [Progressive] Conservative party. ...
Both information sources reported accusations that the Liberal party had stacked the committee at the last minute with MPs who were sympathetic to same-sex marriage. The Ottawa Citizen reported that, "Two Liberal MPs who are not on committee -- Sue Barnes and Anita Neville -- said they were called at the last minute to hurry to the meeting, but would not say who sent them. They replaced two other Liberal MPs: Derek Lee who wants the government to continue fighting gay marriage in the courts and Paul Macklin, the parliamentary secretary to Mr. Cauchon and his representative on the committee."

If these accusations are correct, then it would seem that the Liberal government favored acceptance of the court decision and intentionally packed the committee to get the vote that it wanted to proceed.

Committee chairperson Andy Scott broke the tie by voting in favor of the motion [introduced by Svend Robinson against appealing the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal]»

I remember watching the proceedings of that vote broadcast on Newsworld, and Don Newman being very surprised at those two MPs being called out and replaced by two Liberal MPs who had not sat in during the deliberations f the committee. It was stacking the committee of the crassest kind to obtain their desired result.

Reason 4:
The Canada Health Act was passed unanimously by Parliament in 1984, and received Royal Assent on April 1 of the same year. This act is often hailed as the cornerstone of our Canadian identity, that which sets us apart from other societies. The slightest hint that some may wish to change even one comma in the act brings howls of protest. In other words, this act, a mere 22 year old document, is untouchable, yet a millennial tradition and institution, that of marriage, is cavalierly set aside, purportedly in the name of justice and equality and tolerance.

Reason 5:
Finally, I resent the fact that because one opposes SSM one is a "far-right-wing extremist" or "homophobic" or other choice epithets.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

B/c of the church, I would believe that cival unions would be more socially acceptable and Gays should be entitled to insurance benefits of their partners.

Ellie, I personally have no problem with civil unions and all the benefits that would be part of marriage.

I do have a problem with adoption for gays, but that is because I have to ask why we would deliberately start a child out without a parent of one sex or the other. But I've heard all the arguments for the other side, including that gays are so much better parents than straights who always beat their wives and are terrible parents, etc. And aren't kids better off with two same-sex parents than no parents at all?

Yes, I've heard it all but I still feel that it is not in the best interest of the child.

However, I do feel for you and your brother. I don't think gays should be the target of verbal abuse.

The thing is that in this country it seems to be going in the other direction, and anyone who voices dissent against the powerful gay lobby here is the target of verbal abuse. Just my observations.

It's a complex issue. What are the laws in your State regarding gay marriage at this time?

ellie said...

Gabby, I am not sure if it is different in Canada, however, you have to consider the fact that because gay couples are not given the same rights as married couples, the lines become blurred, and it then becomes a cival rights issue.
# 2 I don't think that it is fair to lump all gays into the liberal activists that are using strained tactics to get their point across. If you think about the abortion debate, we don't lump all people that are pro choice in the activist group. Same with any activist. My brother is a peaceful person, why should others actions penalize him.
#3 same thing, penalize the masses due to the actions of a minority.
#4 documents are changed all the time. Because it is 'old' doesn't mean that it is right. 22 years ago there were a large majority of gay that were stil closeted b/c of the way societies have portrayed them. In the states, that is about when the AIDS epidemic burst onto the scene and it became a gay disease. You had people paying to have their deaths recorded as passing away from cancer b/c they didn't want to be associated with gays. So times have changed, people are more open. Therefor you see many more people proud of who they are instead of living a lie. All those times I thought that my brother was into drugs because he hated everything...it was the lie he was living, he wasn't happy. Now it is like the sun finally shined on him.
#5, I never called you a homophobe and I slightly resent the implication. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as they respect the opinions of others. I was invited here and came under the condition that this would be a polite 'not so' debate. Calling you a bigot or a homophobe would be judgemental, and against the point I am trying to make.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Gabby - Wow! You are a wealth of information!

Re: #2 and #3. I never knew that.

Gabby, do you know anything about this issue of the provinces being the only ones to have jurisdiction over "civil unions?" I didn't even know we actually had civil unions in Canada, but Hedy Fry made some comment to that effect tonight, as a reason why the feds can't discuss civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

Ellie, I don't think Gabby was addressing you specifically. I think she was just presenting her opinion, as everyone is invited to do here.

I appreciate that you guys are so respectful of each other, unlike some people I know...

ellie said...

adoption: Tricky topic. The reason I changed my mind about adoption and gays had nothing to do with my brother actually. A couple in Florida had taken in 7 children of various age ranges. They were gay. The children were from 2 years old and up. All 7 children were dying from AIDS. When the couple went to adopt the children b/c they had never known a family before and wanted to be legally apart of one before they died, the state took all the children away. Their reasoning, gays should not be allowed to adopt. None of these children were replaced in homes, no one wanted them. So this is the life that they know. Everyone wants a 'baby' if you speak with many gay couples, they want a child. Most couples ready to make that type of commitment are ready to deal with the homosexuality issue.
Right now a California judge said he would perform cival unions, but the state came back and said they would not recognize the union. New Jersey just passed a law that partners of cival union are entitled to the same benefits as all married couples. I live in Maryland. SSM is not allowed, nor is the cival union recognized. I am not sure if they do this in hopes to extiguish the ssm, but that will not happen. There will be a movement, just like the afro american movement, just like the femenist movement. 'do unto others' I try to live by it.

ellie said...

they say that the issue is a state issue, but our president have over ridden the states that have made decisions thus far.

I voted for him, but really can't stand him, he is the one person that everytime I see him my blood boils and I would have no regrets smacking.(or punching)
My other brother is a Marine and served 2 tours in Iraq.
My brother Phil, was released from his military enrollment b/c of his gay status. The don't ask don't tell policy is supposed to work, but if you tell, your not fit to fight and defend our Country.
It is so much more than just marriage.
From the time Phil was born, he always said that he would make a great president. I believed him then and still do. The other thing I told him when he came out to me, "you just might end up being one of the most important political figures of our time. I can't wait to witness that"

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ellie, your first-hand accounts sure do put a personal touch on things. The story about the gay couple adopting all the babies with AIDs was touching.

I hope your State eventually allows some kind of legal recognition for gay couples. As I mentioned before, I think the pendulum has swung too far up here; perhaps not enough where you are.

Thanks for the chat and the insight. Going to do a bit of reading now, but please do drop by again.

Gabby in QC said...

Joanne said:
"I don't think Gabby was addressing you specifically. I think she was just presenting her opinion, as everyone is invited to do here."

Thanks for that, Joanne. Absolutely, my comments are in general, not directed at Ellie.

Gabby in QC said...

Ellie said:
«I am not sure if it is different in Canada, however, you have to consider the fact that because gay couples are not given the same rights as married couples, the lines become blurred, and it then becomes a cival rights issue.»

This is the information I found on benefits granted to same-sex couples here in Canada. It appears they were granted full benefits in 2000, and Bill C-38, which became law in 2005, granted same-sex couples the right to marriage.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/mar/index.html#toc
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/mar/2.html#_ftnref1

«In 2000, Parliament enacted the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, extending benefits and obligations under 68 federal statutes to common-law opposite-sex and same-sex couples. As a result, the majority of the legal consequences of marriage in federal law now also apply to all couples in committed common-law relationships. Many of the benefits and obligations granted to married couples under provincial and territorial laws and programs are granted equally to common-law couples of the same sex and the opposite sex in the majority of provinces and territories. ...»

Ellie also said:
«I don't think that it is fair to lump all gays into the liberal activists that are using strained tactics to get their point across.»

I don't think I lumped all gays together. Please notice that I said "a very militant segment of the gay & lesbian community."
A couple of years ago, I read an op-ed written by a gay person, John McKellar, founder of a group called HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism). Go to these two sites if you want to read a couple of interesting articles by Mr. McKellar:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/McKellarJ%20HOPE02.htm
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MckellarJ%20HOPE01.htm

PS: your brothers are lucky to have a loving sister like you. And your country as well, to have two young men willing to serve in the military.

Gabby in QC said...

Joanne said:
"Gabby, do you know anything about this issue of the provinces being the only ones to have jurisdiction over "civil unions?"

This is the information I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Discussion_in_Parliament.2C_1999-September_2003

«Civil status is of provincial jurisdiction in Canada. However, the definition of marriage is a federal law. On June 17, 2003, then Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would not appeal the Ontario ruling, and that his government would introduce legislation to recognize same-sex marriage but protect the rights of churches to decide which marriages they would solemnize.»

Joanne (True Blue) said...

PS: your brothers are lucky to have a loving sister like you. And your country as well, to have two young men willing to serve in the military.

Gabby, thanks for mentioning that. I second the motion.

Also thanks for your insight about my question. I guess then that this civil union objection merely boils down to the fact that provinces have the power to confer marriage whereas the feds only have the power to define it. Still I can't see why they can't redefine it using another word. Oh well, another pipedream of mine shot down.

ellie said...

It seems that Canada has advance far more than the United States. Jay once said that "If you want the state out of the church business, quit asking the state to stick its nose into church business". That is part of the point in my country. We elect a government official to represent the masses, but b/c of religion, he picks and chooses who he wants to represent. He can oppose SSM but getting an 8th month abortion is ok. ??? am I missing something here.
Jay also made the comment that He was a married man and still considered living in sin. That comment alone broke my heart, because of the truth in it. But I choose to believe that Our God is a forgiving God, a loving God, and and accepting God. I used to fear for my brother's soul, after all, God destroyed an entire city b/c of sin, then washed away the world in a massive flood. I have not been to church in a long time, some might say I know nothing about the Bible. My mother in law begs me to raise our son Catholic. But I believe that no one should have to go through another person to confess their sins or to have a relationship with God. I know I live a good life, and I never purposely hurt anyone, I am considerate. I believe in God and teach my son his word, for this I do believe that I will be accepted. Remember, the bible says that a sin is a sin, and there is no degree of sin over another, they are all weighed equally. It doesn't sound right, but this is how I was raised. Phil is going to be alright and one day I will greet him at Heaven's gate with open arms.
Canadians are lucky that they have advanced as far as they have. The fact that they have insurance benefits of their spouce is a step I doubt we will have for atleast the next 10 years.

Gabby, Thank you, Joanne, Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Mine is only one opinion, but it has been nice to be able to voice it openly. I don't normally get so personal.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ellie, Jay also showed how tolerant he is of other people's opinions by saying:


Your true colours come through finally, just another bigot.

Gormless asshat is a compliment for such a sick twisted monster like yourself.

Tue Dec 05, 12:08:19 PM EST



This is an example of the pendulum swaying too far to the left. He can say whatever he wants about me and nobody takes issue. I voice an opinion, and look what I am called!

I appreciate your comments, Ellie, because they are respectful of all points of view. I only wish people here could learn from your great example.

ellie said...

I understand where Jay might come from though Joanne. I am not Gay, so I can't speak for him. Thing is, Gays, hear it all the time. It's all about the tone, the looks, the constant struggle to be equal. Jay is passionate about the issue. He really is a sweet guy. I think after awhile the comments wear you down. I am by no means calling you a bigot, you clearly stated that you were not against cival union and that is the issue in the states. It is hard for me to pass judgement about what is going on in another country. I have learned alot though.
I am in the process of learning more about my heritage. My grandmother was Indian. Through learning I realized, there is always going to be a movement. First it was americans pulling from a King, blacks and slavery, then it was the americans pushing the Indians out,then blacks and slavery again, then the femenist movement, now illegal mexicans and gays... It is hard for me not to know my heritage b/c it was unaccepted and destroyed. How do I teach my son where he came from?

This is all I will say regarding this post.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Oh boy. Best I bite my tongue on that one.

Crabgrass said...

Joanne, don't you think that the availability of divorce is more damaging to the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to wed?

I think I'm done talking about this now. I've posted a graphic depiction of my considered opinion at my own blog.