Homosexual marriage (social & military implications, and related events)

[muskrat89]

I think about all the possible points have been made, that relate to the original post. If someone thinks of a related comment, maybe a new thread can start.....

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Thanks Muskrat, sorry I had to bail, but duty called.[and they pay the bills]

 

[McG]

Harper warns of 'radical' marriages
Globe and Mail Update with Canadian Press 
20 Jan 05

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper warned Thursday that if same-sex legislation becomes law, the Liberals won't be able to prevent fundamentalist groups from requesting extreme types of marriages such as polygamy.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler quickly moved to quash those fears.
"We don't see any connection, I repeat, any connection between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage," Mr. Cotler said Thursday. "Any attempt to make that kind of connection is simply a way of confusing distinguishable issues in every regard."

Mr. Harper told reporters in Quebec on Thursday that if the Liberals don't enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in law, "radical" groups may begin launching constitutional battles arguing that it is legal for a man to marry more than one woman, as occurs in a polygamous marriage.

"I think that's where we should draw the line," he said after a speech in Montreal where he endorsed tax incentives for members of agricultural co-operatives.

The Tory Leader made the comments a day after the Liberals decided to launch a study into the social and legal impacts of polygamy.
The study is being conducted by the federal agency, Status of Women Canada.

The agency wants to ensure that the government is prepared for the possibility that groups may use same-sex legislation to challenge the legality of polygamy.

Some concluded the federal government was on a pre-emptive strike against a campaign to legalize polygamy.


Mr. Harper, who was wrapping up a three-day visit to Quebec, said he fears the Liberals may end up being open to eventually legalizing polygamy.

"As soon as they've got to attack one traditional idea, the next one is down the road.

"I don't want to get into the polygamy debate, but I fear if we do this, the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else."

Mr. Harper's comments come as the gay-marriage issue heats up in Canada ahead of proposed Liberal legislation, expected to be tabled during the session of Parliament that starts Jan. 31.

Opponents and proponents are lining up and planning to lobby MPs to vote for their point of view on the issue. This week, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Toronto urged the Liberals to use the notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marriage in Canada for at least five years to provide more opportunity for discussion of the issue.

The clause is a mechanism that the provincial and federal governments can use to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been the basis of decisions in provincial courts upholding the right of gay couples to marry.

But the federal Justice Minister, Mr. Cotler, rejected that demand on Wednesday.

The Tories also launched an anti-same sex advertising campaign this week meant for ethnic media and community newspapers, promoting Mr. Harper as a protector of traditional marriage.

With divisions even in Mr. Martin's own caucus, Mr. Harper hopes to garner the support of voters who currently vote Liberal.

During a visit to India this week, Mr. Martin was forced to defend his government's proposed bill after an influential Sikh religious leader denounced gay marriage in a letter published in a New Delhi newspaper.

Two of Mr. Martin's Liberal MP's admitted in India where they are travelling with the Prime Minister that they would not be voting in favour of the bill.

With reports from Canadian Press

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050120.wharp0120/BNStory/National/

 

[PPCLI MCpl]

A rather odd article from the Peoples Republic Of British Columbia, comments?



B.C. lesbians fight to hold wedding reception in Catholic hall
Last Updated Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:32:23 EST
CBC News
VANCOUVER - A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men's group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday.

The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003.

They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple.

The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday.

The couple's lawyer, Barbara Findlay, said they didn't realize a Catholic group operated the hall when they rented it.

She said that after the women paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations, the Knights of Columbus backed out.

"They got a call saying they had learned the celebration was in relation to a same-sex marriage and they couldn't countenance that, so they cancelled the booking," said Findlay.

The head of the Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, Elemer Lazar, declined a CBC News request for an interview. But he has said in the past that he doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility.

The hearing is expected to last four days.

Court decisions in six provinces and one territory have already paved the way for same-sex marriages.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the federal government will proceed with legislation early in 2005 legalizing same-sex marriage across the country.

 

[KevinB]

Yeah right...  They did not know the KOC operated the hall... :

More carpet munchng deviant bullshit trying to inflame Christians and to garner sympathy for their pathetic lifestyle.  Same sort of people trying to ban the Bible as a hate book.


YMMV


Kevin

 

[camochick]

Yeah right...   They did not know the KOC operated the hall... :

More carpet munchng deviant bullshit trying to inflame Christians and to garner sympathy for their pathetic lifestyle.   Same sort of people trying to ban the Bible as a hate book.


YMMV


Kevin

Although I dont agree with forcing a catholic hall to rent to lesbians, I also don't agree with your hateful post. Maybe instead of posting here you should just go pick up your little white hood from the dry cleaners. Maybe burn a few crosses in someones yard. It's 2005, and gays and lesbians are here whether you like it or not. You don't have to accept them, but throwing around slurs shows ignorance and a lack of understanding. Shame on you.

 

[rcr]

Homosexuality is definately here to stay, however there should be boundaries in place to protect the rights of those who do not want their holy buildings or properties involved with same-sex marriages.  Christianity, Catholicism especially, is very sensitive to something the bible does not deem appropriate, and it is wrong for a government or rights institution to force them to accept something they are not willing to accept themselves.  However I am sure if the legislation passes and same-sex marriage is legalized that many inner-city churches and non-denominational churches will open their doors.  Many new churches ma even rise to welcome it. After all same-sex marriage involves two humans.  But if the church (KOC is affiliated with the Catholic church - read properties above) does not want any part of it, that is their right.

I believe KevinB, like many, is just fed up with the media-borne attacts many, homosexual or not, use on institutions that have not opened their doors to current movements or idealogies in Canada.  The Canada that does have many instances of those climbing on the backs of many to get to the heights of few.

 

[a_majoor]

This is definitely an attempt to attack a "traditional" institution. It seems odd that the very people who are agitating so loudly for acceptance and tolerance fail to show any themselves.....

 

[George Wallace]

Homosexuality is definately here to stay, however there should be boundaries in place to protect the rights of those who do not want their holy buildings or properties involved with same-sex marriages. Christianity, Catholicism especially, is very sensitive to something the bible does not deem appropriate, and it is wrong for a government or rights institution to force them to accept something they are not willing to accept themselves. However I am sure if the legislation passes and same-sex marriage is legalized that many inner-city churches and non-denominational churches will open their doors. Many new churches ma even rise to welcome it. After all same-sex marriage involves two humans. But if the church (KOC is affiliated with the Catholic church - read properties above) does not want any part of it, that is their right.

I believe KevinB, like many, is just fed up with the media-borne attacts many, homosexual or not, use on institutions that have not opened their doors to current movements or idealogies in Canada. The Canada that does have many instances of those climbing on the backs of many to get to the heights of few.

This matter is further complicated by the various levels of Government, Federal and Provincial, drawing up conflicting legislations.   Even differences of interpretation of legislations between different Departments within Government further cloud the matter.  

For instance, the CF Chaplaincy has been ordered to accommodate Same Sex Marriages, yet that is in conflict with the rules laid out for the Church elsewhere in Canadian Legislation.   Why would a Church on a Military Base be different from a Church on Civie Street?

GW

 

[onecat]

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003.

They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple.

The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

I can see both sides of this debate here, but lets remember this is a hall not a church and is open to public rental by anyone.   No one if forcing the KOC to marry them, they just want to use there space.   I doubt anyone here would support the KOC if they had decided to not to rent a black couple who wanted to have their there wedding RECEPTION in their Hall.   remember it was for their RECEPTION only, not the wedding.

 

[735_winnipeg]

lesbians?!  where's my invite...for that matter where's my vid cam? 

 

[camochick]

lesbians?!   where's my invite...for that matter where's my vid cam?  

Wow I am seeing so much intelligence on the board today.  :

 

[735_winnipeg]

hey gimme a break here, it's my day off from work

 

[Wizard of OZ]

This is definitely an attempt to attack a "traditional" institution. It seems odd that the very people who are agitating so loudly for acceptance and tolerance fail to show any themselves.....

Have to agree with the Majoor on this one.

I have no Prob with them getting into a Common union with the same rights as marrage but i don't think marriage should be the tittle given to them.  It may not be the "most intellegent postion" but it is mine. It is the rights they are after here correct not the tittle.

 

[camochick]

Day off or not, you're being obnoxious. These women are lesbians, I am sure even if they were straight they wouldnt want anything to do with you.

To get back to the argument, I don't think that any religion should be forced to perform or recognize gay marriages if it is against their beliefs. I think some people take things to the extremes and that there has to be a limit on who can whine or sue  about what. Look at how many men have had their careers ruined because some woman couldnt take a compliment about her clothes. There is working towards equal rights and then there is taking it to the extreme. I think these women should have known better and that they should have just book some place else.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

But in today's media age if you don't continue to press the buttons of society your issue will die.

But camochick i agree it is all matter of posturing, and who can gain what or make money off of someones ill doing or opression.  People tend to forget what the real issue is. EQUAL RIGHTS, and get stuck in verbal barbs or bull s*** issues that have little or nothing to do with the real point.

 

[LowRider]

.

  I doubt anyone here would support the KOC if they had decided to not to rent a black couple who wanted to have their there wedding RECEPTION in their Hall.  

True,but that would be a "racial" issue SSM is not.

 

[camochick]

.

True,but that would be a "racial" issue SSM is not.

But what is the difference really? 50 years ago blacks couldnt go to the same stores as whites, or use the same bathrooms, or sit at the front of the bus. Now we are telling gays that they can't get married. It's the same thing. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If you are not gay how is it going to affect you. It won't. Who cares if its called a union or a marriage. What does it really matter? Will the world stop turning? I highly doubt it. I don't get why this is such an issue.

 

[GIJANE]

But what is the difference really? 50 years ago blacks couldnt go to the same stores as whites, or use the same bathrooms, or sit at the front of the bus. Now we are telling gays that they can't get married. It's the same thing. Everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. If you are not gay how is it going to affect you. It won't. Who cares if its called a union or a marriage. What does it really matter? Will the world stop turning? I highly doubt it. I don't get why this is such an issue.

Ditto.....

Jane

 

[Recce41]

Fellas
Read Camochick sig?