Better definition but still wrong

I think marriage should be defined as "a religious ritual affirming a civil union."


Canada to Move on Gay Marriage After Court Ruling
Thu Dec 9, 2004 01:36 PM ET
By Randall Palmer

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of Canada gave the federal government the go-ahead on Thursday to legalize gay marriage, prompting Prime Minister Paul Martin to announce plans to introduce a redefinition of marriage early next year.

But the court refused a government request to say the constitution required the legalization of gay marriage, stripping away a political weapon that would have made it easier to push its draft bill through Parliament.

It did rule that the constitution allowed the proposed redefinition of marriage as "the lawful union of two persons," while protecting the right of religious organizations to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Canada would be the third country, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to allow gay marriage, but the issue is a political hot potato that has divided all four parties in Parliament.

Lower court decisions have legalized gay marriage in six of the 10 provinces and in one of the three territories, and Martin said this patchwork could not be allowed to continue.

"The government believes that uniformity is absolutely essential, since we don't want the balkanization of marriage in this country," Martin told reporters.

"I do not believe you can have two classes of citizens."

Posted by Prometheus 6 on December 9, 2004 - 2:06pm :: Race and Identity
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about a "civil solenmization of a religious rite"?

For Quakers, God marries us. The rest of us just watch.

Posted by  Quaker in a Basement on December 9, 2004 - 7:17pm.

Nope. I want to give the word "marriage" to the religious folks of the world. What society must be concerned with is the legal stuff that is given to folks who undergo the ritual.

I can't deal in people's relationship with their church so I need to let gay folks worry about getting recognition of their union by the various churches. If they really have the spirit they will worship.

BUt we do need a legal framework where their partnerships are recognized. You commit to someone, you should be able to decide their medical treatment in an emergency because you have a bigger stake in your partner's health than anyone else. You shouldn't need to worry about how property jointly acquired in good faith might get ganked if, as happens, the relationship doesn't work. All that shit.

So I want the law and the tax code to recognize civil unions only. Let churches set whatever requirements they want on the ritual, continue to let the ritual serve as legal recognition of the forming of the bond. But expunge the word marriage from the law except as an example of the sort of thing that will be recognized as establishing a civil union.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on December 9, 2004 - 8:14pm.

We're on the same side of this. We're just saying it opposite of each other.

Marriage is religious. Marriage belongs to the church.

The contractual stuff is civil. Contracts belong to the state.

The state shouldn't be in the business of picking which religious rites are better than others. All rites performed within recognized religions should receive equal treatment under the law.

Yes?

Posted by  Quaker in a Basement on December 9, 2004 - 10:07pm.

Yes.

Posted by  Al-Muhajabah on December 10, 2004 - 11:41pm.

Yes.

Posted by  Prometheus 6 on December 10, 2004 - 11:54pm.