One great thing about gay marriage: it's simple. - Macleans.ca
 

One great thing about gay marriage: it’s simple.


 

From England comes news of a couple who want their romantic and economic partnership recognized under the law, but who just don’t have the “right” sexual orientation for it. Oh, you figure you’ve heard this one before, do you?


 

One great thing about gay marriage: it’s simple.

  1. Interesting! I personally think that the government should get out of the marriage business, and just be responsible for civil partnerships. It would be better for religious freedom (since they would be allowed to keep the keep marriage as a sacrament), and better for for homosexuals (since they would be recognized equally under the law).

    Plus, it would be easier for the courts to adjudicate. Since what people really care about for "marriage" under the law is insurance policies, asset protection, and care of dependents, it probably should be more structured under the law more like a business partnership, only dealing with domestic assets and responsibilities. It would also have the benefit of extending these benefits to people who don't have a sexual relationship, such as two bachelor brothers or a grandmother and daughter who have a child to look after because the dad is dead.

    • I personally think that the government should get out of the marriage business

      I personally think the government should get out of the discrimination business.

    • It would be better for religious freedom (since they would be allowed to keep the keep marriage as a sacrament).

      Could you please cite for us examples of religions that have dropped marriage as a sacrament in response to the legalization of same sex marriage, or any clergy or religious group that has been forced to recognize a same sex marriage in opposition to the dictates of their faith?

      • I think a fight to force the secular version of marriage on religious denominations is coming. In my faith tradition marriage generally requires a man and woman to be valid, just as Eucharistic celebration requires wine and unleavened bread. Gender and gender roles are part and parcel of marriage. However, I do not doubt that there will be people who will try to use the courts to try to force the hand of the Church, and that won't be good for anybody.

        Largely, if the Churches no longer have the legal responsibility of creating civil unions that have legal weight, but marriage is reserved as a religious responsibility alone without legal rights and benefits, it should be easier to claim the right of religious freedom on the issue.

        • Poppycock. Nobody will ever be able to force a church to recognize same sex marriages if they don't want to. That's just cheap fear-mongering used by opponents of same sex marriage.

          • Prior court decisions don't fill me with confidence. Decisions from the Human Rights Tribunals fill me with even less.

          • Freedom of religious belief and worship is fully and fundamentally recognized by Canadian human rights laws. The Constitution even privileges freedom of religion as a "fundamental freedom". Churches and their members have nothing to fear from courts or tribunals making any order for them to recognize or perform any sacrament.

            That is different from situations we have all seen, where churches get into a business (as they so often do) and then try to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That's a no-no, and the limits there are well understood. There is nothing to fear.

          • There have been decisions that have had nothing to do with business that tell us where the trend is going.

      • I think a fight to force the secular version of marriage on religious denominations is coming. In my faith tradition marriage generally requires a man and woman to be valid, just as Eucharistic celebration requires wine and unleavened bread. Gender and gender roles are part and parcel of marriage. However, I do not doubt that there will be people who will try to use the courts to try to force the hand of the Church, and that won't be good for anybody.

        Largely, if the Churches no longer have the legal responsibility of creating civil unions that have legal weight, but marriage is reserved as a religious responsibility alone without legal rights and benefits, it should be easier to claim the right of religious freedom on the issue.

    • Plus, it would be easier for the courts to adjudicate. Since what people really care about for "marriage" under the law is insurance policies, asset protection, and care of dependents, it probably should be more structured under the law more like a business partnership, only dealing with domestic assets and responsibilities. It would also have the benefit of extending these benefits to people who don't have a sexual relationship, such as two bachelor brothers or a grandmother and daughter who have a child to look after because the dad is dead.

      ***

      I love it when people type words at random.

  2. "colluding with the segregation that exists in matrimonial law between gay civil partnerships and straight civil marriage"

    I have vision of guy trying to avoid marriage when woman is nagging him to get married – so he says, I can't get married babe because we would be "colluding with the segregation that exists …..". Woman called bloke's bluff and now there they are.

    On a more serious note, I agree with TedTE. The State should get out of the marriage business – it has no legitimate role to play in deciding who I marry. Except for children and animals, of course. You are not allowed to marry those two but anything else goes.

    • "The State should get out of the marriage business"

      We've been through that a million times. Move on already.

      • Easy for you to say, if by move on you mean put up and shut up. This court case illustrates that "separate but equal" doesn't cut the mustard. Either couples who wish to register their partnership with the state are equal or they're not, so why not let them choose how they do so. Good on this couple for pointing out the hypocrisy.

          • I do enjoy it when that happens though. One person who clearly agrees with another person arguing with them online because they've misinterpreted what the first person was saying. ("It's time for you to move on and accept the legalization of same sex marriage"… "No, it's time for YOU to move on and accept the legalization of same sex marriage!!!").

            It's more fun when people get all belligerent about it though.

      • It's funny how it only started after gay marriage became a big issue, though. And I wonder how much the neo-con proponents have thought about the churches willing to perform same sex marriages?

        • Obviously, social conservatives disapprove of a lot of the things that churches who preform same sex marriages do. As long as they aren't forced to participate though, social conservatives are generally content to live and let live, being citizens of a pluralistic democracy like everyone else.

          • I am glad to hear it. Small mercies, 'n all.

  3. If I'm not mistaken, Colby, our very own jurisdiction of sunny, tolerant Alberta recognizes unions (at least as far as taxes and benefits go) between any two co-habiting people who can demonstrate a life commitment to one another. So if Selma and Patty want to put their civil union to effect under the law, Alberta is the place. Here's to you, Ralph Klein.

    Of course, he only defined the law so broadly so that he wouldn't have to publicly condone gay unions by name. But whatever. I just take comfort in knowing that if my wife ever cuts me lose, I can always move to Edmonton and try my luck with Colby and his cats.