Reply With QuoteAnother good link:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084320/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html
No, I don't think it'll happen any time soon in the U.S. either, but I can't help but wonder what effect (if any) this will have on American attitudes if indeed same-sex marriages are nationally recognized in Canada and become commonplace. If you consider the amount of cross-border traffic between the two countries, and how often citizens of both countries interact and work with each other, I can the potential for a kind of osmotic spreading south of the border that would subtly generate a more sympathetic view on the matter among many people. I do think most Americans are opposed to gay marriages, many fervently so, but what would happen if the U.S. Supreme Court were eventually to "give its blessing?"
Where's Cleve when you need him? :)
Another good link:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084320/
It might be interesting to see if the Democrats use gay rights as a side issue in the presidential campaign. You know, a simple "do you think that gay people should be given the same discrimination protection as other minorities?" question might be interesting to see Bush try to stay on the good sides of both the Fundamenalist Right and the liberatarian types.
edit: And the all-important Cleve vote of course.
We have "civil unions" here in Vermont for gay couples, the wording being something of a concession to the opposition. And there was a lot of it--their slogan, "Take Vermont Back", I guess from the gays and liberals--but overall, it's been something of a dud. They expected people to flock here (good for tourism), then try to use their "civil union" certificate in home states as a legitimate way to get their own states to recognize gay marriage, but it hasn't happened. And not that many people have had civil unions.
Americans are far too touchy about the religious connotations of the word "marriage", but I'm sure we'll have civil unions in most, if not all, states in the next twenty years or so.
Quite basically, there just aren't as many homosexuals as leftist orthodoxy would have you believe, let alone ones that would want to bond permanently. Gay activists are extremely vocal but not very numerous, and a legally confirmed "marriage" wouldn't seem to fit the "rebel against society" pretensions of those activists anyway.Originally Posted by steve
My crystal ball says when gay marriages (or civil unions or whatever) are introduced they'll be forgotten fairly quickly due to lack of attendance. I haven't heard anything about similar experiments in Europe after their first staging with the obligatory public outcry.
It's a good thing for those who want it, though, however few they might be.Quite basically, there just aren't as many homosexuals as leftist orthodoxy would have you believe, let alone ones that would want to bond permanently. Gay activists are extremely vocal but not very numerous, and a legally confirmed "marriage" wouldn't seem to fit the "rebel against society" pretensions of those activists anyway.
It grants a legal status almost equal to that of marriage, giving same-sex couples equal rights. It might also help de-stigmatise same-sex couples, especially in public life; I've got a feeling that quite a few countries have quite a way to go there.
The British had a couple ministers outed a while ago, with much fuss; our (Conservative) Minister of Finance (my favourite conservative politician, Capitalist Bastard though he may be) also publicly revealed that he was homosexual, and lived in a same-sex partnership. (He was then elected leader of the Oslo Conservative Party). A former Labour Minister of Justice (female) also came forward some years ago.
Aren't we the demographic mind reader.Quite basically, there just aren't as many homosexuals as leftist orthodoxy would have you believe, let alone ones that would want to bond permanently. Gay activists are extremely vocal but not very numerous, and a legally confirmed "marriage" wouldn't seem to fit the "rebel against society" pretensions of those activists anyway.
My crystal ball says when gay marriages (or civil unions or whatever) are introduced they'll be forgotten fairly quickly due to lack of attendance. I haven't heard anything about similar experiments in Europe after their first staging with the obligatory public outcry.
If you define leftist orthodoxy as "10% or more", than there aren't as many. The rest of your comment is spectacularly uninformed. The gay activists that are promoting a legal status for homosexual unions are not the same ones that have "rebel against society" pretensions; quite the contrary, they are the ones that want to live pretty much like their straight neighbors. The more "radical" organizations don't care much about gay marriage--and yes, there are those that sneer at homosexual relationships that "imitate" a heterosexual model, although the different activist groups do share overlapping concerns when it comes to things like non-discrimination in housing and employment.
If not the majority, than at least a large minority of gays are just as interested in "permanent bonding" as you or I might be. It is easy to understand why they may be slow to take advantage of Vermont's civil commitment or other procedure that could give them some sort of legal status. They are so used to being forced to make their unions in spite of societal restrictions, involving a government that acknowledges them reluctantly (as in Vermont), or ambiguously or negatively (as in the rest of the country) hardly seems like an advantage.
So will the de-crimilzation of marijuana in Canada also affect our US cousins and their anti-drug laws? The way I understand it I can grow five plants in my house and it'll be considered personal use and perfectly legal. Albert, we can get married and smoke a joint at the reception! (except Premier Klein is willing to ignore federal laws and doesn't accept same-sex marriages as legal in Alberta).
Sometimes I hate the English language--accept, except, affect and effect, it's all so confusing.
ian
US lawmakers are seriously upset about it. I'm guessing there may be some fallout.
I saw a local news report last night about border towns in Vermont being concerned about kids running over to Canada to legally smoke dope, since they already do that now to drink. (As if they can't get tons of pot here in Vermont; there's no smog here, but the whole state exists in a sort of perpetual pot haze.)
As others have noted, this isn't quite true. It has nothing to do about "rebelling," or even a grand need to have some document that binds a couple together. It's about things like health care, tax breaks, etc. And the lovely prospect of gay divorces.
"Damn you filthy homosexuals and your promiscous ways!"
"But we're a committed couple. We'd like to get married."
"Damn you filthy homosexuals and your defamation of the institution of marriage!"
All of that's a bit much before even a first date, don't you think? :D
Klein's certainly willing to go against the federal government over this, but he might have to back down on when faced with an increasing number of legal challenges, just like the mayor of Edmonton had to back down about proclaiming the gay pride parade when he was informed that he would be acting against the law by not doing so.
That's because Canada is internationally recognized for producing the best-quality pot in the entire history of civilization. :wink:
That's not entirely true. There's talks of decriminalizing marijuana in Canada, but not legalizing it. It would still be against the law to be caught possessing pot, but the punishment would be a fine akin to a speeding ticket instead of a prison term and criminal record.I saw a local news report last night about border towns in Vermont being concerned about kids running over to Canada to legally smoke dope,
Yeah, but most of it is still being grown by US draft-dodgers living in British Columbia. Then they married our Canadian women and spawned a whole new breed of weed-smoking, peace-loving hippies. Blame USA, I say! :)
Before anyone thinks this is Cleve--I am actually kidding...only 43.6% of our pot is grown by former Americans.
ian
Hey, do any other Calgarians on Qt3 want to join in, or are we the only ones here?
I think we're the only two Calgarians, but seeing as Canadians need a 3-1 posting ratio to Americans I think we can just keep replying to each other to help get our post counts up. Not that I'm ever going to make the top 50 or anything.
Nebraska recently voted a clause into their constitution that same sex marriages will never be recognized by the state, even if it is recognized by another state or country.
The ACLU is challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court now.
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/i...rd?record=1252
I swear, I'm ashamed at what a ignorant state I live in. And the ACLU isn't kidding about the way the law was worded on the ballot. I'll have to see if I can find the wording on the ballot, but it was misleading. It honestly sounded like a law to prohibit the recognition of a marriage between a man and his horse. And the opposition didn't bother to actually stating why we were supposed to be voting against it. "Vote No on prop 435" doesn't tell me a dang thing.
I swear, I'm ashamed at what a ignorant state I live in. And the ACLU isn't kidding about the way the law was worded on the ballot. I'll have to see if I can find the wording on the ballot, but it was misleading. It honestly sounded like a law to prohibit the recognition of a marriage between a man and his horse. And the opposition didn't bother to actually stating why we were supposed to be voting against it. "Vote No on prop 435" doesn't tell me a dang thing.
Wow, I have to say this is the first time I've ever been beaten to posting the local Nebraska perspective anywhere on the Internet :D
There's something about this issue that just pushes people's buttons and makes them feel threatened and irrational. I tried to have an intelligent discussion about it with my co-workers when this was on the ballot in Nebraska. I figured since I work at a software development shop that my college educated co-workers would have some well thought out opinions on the issue. Instead I got dark looks and was called a "homo". Being called a "homo" by coworkers who have met my wife really makes me think that a lot of people aren't capable of any rational thought on this matter.
Irvine California had a ballot measure back in 1990 or so. Measure N would make it illegal to discriminate against gay people in terms of
housing.
This was the popular bumper sticker:
Vote No on Measure N, Say Yes to the Family
So are Albert and greywind getting married or not? That's the real issue here, isn't it?
Yeah, but cops are already refusing to charge people for possession because of the way this is going. The town just next door to me, Brockville, has announced they're not charging for the offence any more and most recent charges have been tossed out. Which is a great demonstration of how things are going, at least in Ontario, because the Brockville cops are as draconian as they come on drug stuff. They busted a woman for selling "drug paraphenalia" a few years ago because she solid tie-die t-shirts and had a copy of High Times behind the counter. No joke.
I'm actually generally against marriage (I'm sure you're all shocked), but since I see it as sort of useless to try to abolish that particular institution, I am very much for opening it to alternative relationships, it's just silly to have it as some sort of heterosexual perk.
I'm already involved in several polygamous relationships with some hot Mormon women, and also greywind's boobs aren't big enough for my liking, so that would be a great big "NO."
What an atheist, pinko commie who's country is overrun with hot under-sexed* women is against marriage, that is shocking.
*I, seriously, saw a study that said women in Scandanavian countries say they do not get enough lovin'. They asked women with significant others and those unattached.
Also:
Celebrate gay marriage, in Vermont
While enforcing those old sodomy laws
One step forward, five steps back
We tell the truth, they turn up the laugh track
Personally, I think civil unions or partnerskap, as it is called here, is demeaning to homosexual couples and only works to accentuate the "difference" between them and heterosexual couples. While a positive development over the situation we had in the past, it is past due time to get rid of this discriminatory label.
LOL, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the abundance of Calgarians in this thread. There's three of us so far...I wonder how many more will crawl out of the woodwork? ;)Hey, do any other Calgarians on Qt3 want to join in, or are we the only ones here?
I think the statistics are skewed a bit because women in Sweden and Scandinavia have actually started making demands :)
And it's hard, the way things are now, to suggest having sex to a woman, since our respect-meter is way up while our understanding meter lags behind.
Posting Permissions