prohibiting gay marriage unjustified - federal brief to canadian supreme court

[wideawake]

Ok, quickly I'd like to address two of these comments:

 

Originally posted by stoneheather

it impacts my life because it is wrong! What the hell happened to faimly values! our for fathers would be rolling in their graves!......why can't they just call it a "civil unity " and accept it!........

 

This guy, Thoms Jefferson ( had something to do with the republic we live in, the constitution, bill of rights....you may have heard of him?), around 1804 when he was president of the good ol' US of A, he sat down with the bible and a knife and cut and pasted what he felt were the relevant points. What he ended up with was bascially a document that presented JC as a pretty decent teacher and guide. Cut out everything in regard to him being anything even remotely divine, and cut out anything the imposed moral judgements on others (hey, let us not forget that the seperation of church and state was ol TJ's idea to begin with...).

 

So please don't jump to any conclusions about how our american forefathers would have rolled on this issue.

 

Next.

 

Originally posted by Arabess

So, people can speak their mind, bring light to the issue and VOTE accordingly....but change the way the church believes??? I THINK NOT!

 

Please, are you serious?

 

The church changes it's mind every time you turn around.

 

Priest could marry woman and men up until around the 1400's.

 

Most popes had a ton of wives/gay lovers/eunchs up until the same time period.

 

Mary isn't a vigrin, than she is, than she isn't again....

 

Mary Mag turns out to NOT be a fallen woman around 1969.

 

The list goes on and on.

 

The christian religion isn't some static ideology that has been consistant through history. It's a ever evolving and morphing instition. Things change. That is the one constant in this world.

[Tony T]

It's only a Canadian court, big deal!

[Arabess]

My point was that there is nothing to be gained by trying to convince any mainstream church that they are wrong. It's a waste of time.

 

As as noted in another thread the churches are growing daily.

 

I wasn't making a judgement....I was making an observation.

[End of my rope]

Regardless of my or your individual belief on the right or wrong of homosexuals, it's not my place to tell them that they aren't as good as the rest of us. Isn't that what it boils down to? The gays want to be validated. They want to be seen as our equals. What's so bad about that?

[meanon]

It's interesting how the tide of public opinion can turn very quickly on an issue like this. In the UK people have reacted with outrage to a very personal story of a well established, publicly know gay couple where the surviving man has not had the benefit of being treated as a spouse following the death of his partner. This has resulted in cross party consensus for the first time ever and the civil union ("gay marriage") bill is being introduced. Abouit time too

[wideawake]

Yeah well, what do you expect, you guys kicked out all of your Puritans 300 years ago and we're still dealing with their decendents today.

[sweetbilly]

Wideawake, TJ may have put the ink on the paper, but he wasn't the driving moral force people make him out to be. He may have suggested the separation of state and religion but it was never addopted to the constitution. There were many other people who signed that particular paper that were driven by their moral convictions, and actually fear an all encompasing diety( unlike canada),and these people have a right to practice their faith the way they should choose to do so, not the way others want them to. And forcing them to ordain a marrage that's forbiden in their faith is a violation of their civil rights. Marriage is NOT a bond instituted by man. It is however, a request to God to unify two people with his blessings, and he will not bless a homosexual union. This homosexual marriage ideologue is aimed at those who will not allow their sincerly held religous beliefs to be destroyed, and like dave1234 always says, "that is all".

 

I'm not going to get into a rant here, but only specific denominations of churches have changed their beliefs through the passage of time, and in my opinion, not any of the ones that actually matter. Not all churches feel that change is necessarilly is good thing. These are the churches that have remained faithful to their God and believe that homosexuality is still a morally reprehenceable act.

 

Besides, allowing homosexual marriages would increase things like prostitution, beastiality, child molestations, AIDS and would undermine the basic civil rights that African Americans have fought so hard for. Because after homosexuals win their, so called, civil rights who's to say that it's not a civil right to have sex with your dog, or to marry a two-year-old child, or to rape a woman. There's alot more here that will affect people, who disagree with homosexual marriage, than most people realize. However, I don't care about civil unions, and for two people that supposedlly love eachother this should be enough to valadate their love. Unless they do have alterior motives?

[zarathustra]

Besides, allowing homosexual marriages would increase things like prostitution, beastiality, child molestations, AIDS and would undermine the basic civil rights that African Americans have fought so hard for. Because after homosexuals win their, so called, civil rights who's to say that it's not a civil right to have sex with your dog, or to marry a two-year-old child, or to rape a woman. There's alot more here that will affect people, who disagree with homosexual marriage, than most people realize. However, I don't care about civil unions, and for two people that supposedlly love eachother this should be enough to valadate their love. Unless they do have alterior motives?

 

 

 

What would these ulterior motives be?

[meanon]

you guys kicked out all of your Puritans 300 years ago

 

We still have a fair few left!!!

 

Our civil union bill replicates most of the legal provisions of marriage but churches have the option of not conducting the ceremonies. Some have already said they will. I'm sure many won't.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by sweetbilly

Wideawake, TJ may have put the ink on the paper, but he wasn't the driving moral force people make him out to be.

 

Are you a communist? Don't throw stones at my man Tom J, he was perhaps the finest mind in the age of the enlightenment.

 

He may have suggested the separation of state and religion but it was never addopted to the constitution.

 

Are you that dumb?

 

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Hmmm....how much you wanna bet that the Bill of Rights and all other amendments are part of the Federal Constitution?

 

 

 

There were many other people who signed that particular paper that were driven by their moral convictions, and actually fear an all encompasing diety( unlike canada),and these people have a right to practice their faith the way they should choose to do so, not the way others want them to.

 

Ummm...hello McFly??? So it's cool for you to practice as you choose but it's not cool for gays? Nice...I rarely see hypocrisy so easily laid out....

 

 

And forcing them to ordain a marrage that's forbiden in their faith is a violation of their civil rights. Marriage is NOT a bond instituted by man. It is however, a request to God to unify two people with his blessings, and he will not bless a homosexual union.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa...maybe your god doesn't bless homo unions. Mine is all about them and thinks they are nifty keen. Actually...my god is gay, and he just puts up with all of us 'breeders' becuase that's the right thing to do.

 

 

 

I'm not going to get into a rant here, but only specific denominations of churches have changed their beliefs through the passage of time, and in my opinion, not any of the ones that actually matter. Not all churches feel that change is necessarilly is good thing. These are the churches that have remained faithful to their God and believe that homosexuality is still a morally reprehenceable act.

 

Name ONE church/religion that has NOT changed over the passage of time.

 

Please...I so look forward to this one...

 

Oh yeah...nice jab at the Catholics there, "ones that actually matter"...good one in my book. Thankfully you're keeping track of which religions are valid and which ones are not.

 

Besides, allowing homosexual marriages would increase things like prostitution, beastiality, child molestations, AIDS and would undermine the basic civil rights that African Americans have fought so hard for. Because after homosexuals win their, so called, civil rights who's to say that it's not a civil right to have sex with your dog, or to marry a two-year-old child, or to rape a woman. There's alot more here that will affect people, who disagree with homosexual marriage, than most people realize. However, I don't care about civil unions, and for two people that supposedlly love eachother this should be enough to valadate their love. Unless they do have alterior motives?

 

I hope your kids turn out gay. Seriously, you need a big fat reality wake up call.

[moimeme]

he will not bless a homosexual union

 

Sez who?

 

these people have a right to practice their faith

 

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with foisting their faith on others who do not practice. Pity you can't see the distinction.

 

actually fear an all encompasing diety( unlike canada)

 

Um. Canada is 33 million people with different views. Some, unfortunately, believe as you do.

[Clancy]

A special hello to Wideawake and to Moimeme. I'm still here because of car trouble but expect to leave soon.

 

Wideawake, you misread my reply to you and to Moimeme; I didn't say that I would prove that your opinion (or anyone else' was wrong.) what I said was that I would, a) provide you with sources, and b) prove that Moimeme was wrong re: her statement saying that I was in error when I said that a majority of Canadians oppose gay marriage. This is wholly unrelated to morality but rather can easily be proven to be statistically true or false by accessing polling data..

 

And to Jenny, hello to you. I see you've gone and gotten yourself enaged since I haven't been around. Was it something I said?

 

Tony, I cracked up when I read your response.

[Moose]

God is the Judge here. Personally I don't agree with gay marriage. But I'm not going to carry a sign and become some fanatic that is out to stop it all. Being gay is wrong all together in my eyes and that is only one man's opinion which I'm entitled to. Even with my Wife's curiousity towards being with another Woman is wrong in my eyes, but again, this is only my opinion. But I am willing to bet that God Himself frowns on gay marriage and is shaking His head in disgust about it. It's not what He intended marriage to be.

[End of my rope]

Even with my Wife's curiousity towards being with another Woman is wrong in my eyes

 

But yet you're up to a threesome with your wife and another woman?

 

Sniff sniff? Is that a hypocrite I smell? Why, I do believe it is!

[Moose]

End of my Rope,

I said that I have a fantasy of being with 2 women at once. I didn't specify gay women.I never said it was ok for my wife to be either. I just don't want her doing something behind my back. Further more, I never said I wanted to be a part of her and another woman, I posed the question what should I do, but never said I accepted it.

[moimeme]

I am willing to bet that God Himself frowns on gay marriage and is shaking His head in disgust about it. It's not what He intended marriage to be.

 

I am willing to bet that God doesn't give a hoot who marries whom and is much more upset about the ways humans find to hate one another.

 

If you ever decide to read the Bible (and I mean ALL of the Bible, not selected passages), you'll see that the places God destroyed were either ones where the people were worshiping idols or else their citizens were being unkind to people!!!! Sound silly? Maybe but read it for yourself and you'll see.

[sweetbilly]

well, Moimeme since you seem to know so much about scripture. Then tell me, what was it paul said about the acceptance of homesexuality in society, and Gods judgement upon that culture. ie, Sodom and Gammorah.

 

Awake: just look at your dollar bill, it says "in God we trust" dosen't it. Oh, and something you so conveinently forgot to mention"Men endowed by their creator with certain uninalienable rights" I can't help it if your so nieve that you can't see who's forged the laws this country has been founded on. So, who's the dumb one now? one church? ok, Gods church; you figure it out from there. As for the rest of your statements, well, I don't throw my pearls before swine!

 

as for ulterior motives, preventing moral people from having a say in anything (ie, govt) that violates their beliefs and effects their lives. If this is a democracy then why is it that the only ones who don't have a right to decide what their governments role should be in society are the christains.

[moimeme]

Just so's you know, 'Paul' was not 'God'. If you want to know how to go to hell, read Leviticus. If you've eaten shellfish, better kiss your soul goodbye. There are a whole lot of other passages of the Bible frequently quoted out of context by people who haven't bothered to read the whole thing.

 

So, SB. Go read it. Cover to cover. Then come back and quote your quotes.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Arabess

I wasn't under the impression this thread belonged only to those who shared your opinion.

And that wasn't my implication, calling an opinion unqualified is not the same as calling it wrong. Darkangelism is not qualified to say whether or not we'll receive economic benefits in terms of oil in this war--as a private citizen, he's simply not qualified.

Originally posted by Darkangelism

And your's are?

I wasn't offering any opinions on the war on Iraq in this thread.

===

(Back on topic)

 

Those who oppose gay marriage make me sick. I haven't heard one legitimate argument.

 

The slippery slope argument is used by people with nothing else to say. Dogs, 2-year old children, etc..--they're not capable of providing consent. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Keep em coming, they're all stupid as of yet.

 

Additionally, if you've ever eaten pork, shellfish, or touched a woman on her cycle--you are EQUALLY guilty as any homosexual, in terms of pentateuchal law. Should we deny marriage rights to shellfish-eaters?

 

Originally posted by sweetbilly

well, Moimeme since you seem to know so much about scripture. Then tell me, what was it paul said about the acceptance of homesexuality in society, and Gods judgement upon that culture. ie, Sodom and Gammorah.

Paul was a sinner, just like you, me, and the gays. He persecuted Christians. He's also responsible for the spread of Christianity, which I consider a good thing. Paul is not God, as Moimeme said. Sometimes he hits the mark, sometimes he's just plain stupid--have you read the part about women covering their heads, etc. ?

as for ulterior motives, preventing moral people from having a say in anything (ie, govt) that violates their beliefs and effects their lives. If this is a democracy then why is it that the only ones who don't have a right to decide what their governments role should be in society are the christains.

Morality is subjective, so while you may think that denying civil rights to people and looking down on them for their actions is morally correct (despite numerous scriptural references on removing the beam from your own eye, or up your ass, or whatever), that's not the way you run a country.

 

Christians have EVERY right to participate in the democracy, so long as their participation doesn't oppress anyone else. That's the right of everyone, people seem to equate democracy with anarchy. You're only free to exercise personal liberty so long as your personal liberty isn't infringing on the liberty of others.

As for the rest of your statements, well, I don't throw my pearls before swine!

But you seem to throw a bunch of swine food before legitimate oysters.

 

(edited with more to say)

 

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...Thomas Jefferson, Third President, U.S.

 

Let’s be honest. This isn’t about morality. It’s about what we think is yucky. 99% of sins are understandable, because we’ve committed them. But sex with dudes? That’s just gross. So they don’t deserve civil rights, because eww, what if they kiss on like public transportation? What if my kid sees them, and thinks they’re somehow human? How uncomfortable will that be? Years ago, black people weren’t allowed to marry white people. Now we look back on our days of racism with shame and disgust—how could we be so ignorant, we’re so damn politically correct we have to say “Fellow human being who descended from the continent of Africa”, because we don’t want to appear racist. But homosexuals are still fair game. I can only hope we one day look back on our days of discriminating against gays because we’re afraid of them with as much contempt as we do to other injustices in the past. I can’t wait until the day we refer to gays as “Fellow human beings who happen to prefer sex with people of the same gender”---or even better in it’s truncated form “fellow human”

 

Any consenting adult who isn’t married, can marry any other consenting adult who isn’t married. They don’t have to love each other, have sex, speak to each other, agree with each other, eat dinner together—or anything else. They just have to sign a few papers. If we can give marriage to ANY man, and ANY woman, and dissolve it 48 hours later if we want, why on earth can’t we give it to any two men?

 

Homosexuals are not trying to infiltrate the church. If they wanted to live under Catholic rule, they could move to Rome. They just want their god-damn rights. I’ve heard NO legitimate argument against giving it to them. They wouldn’t care if it was called marriage or not, they’re not looking to receive the sacraments. I was asked, “Aren’t civil unions enough?”—Certainly, I replied—if you make civil unions so that those civilly unioned were granted the 1000+ things that they’re not granted, and so that their protections aren’t just a statewide writeoff, but federally recognized.

 

In the 15th century people were getting married left and right, without documentation. Then, when they wanted to seperate, there was no way to say who got what property. So, the church said hey, we'd better start tracking this. So, they started performing marriages and keeping records. REmember, at this time, the only centralized government in the world was churches. It moved out of the church when we began to have civil centers, city halls if you will, and central records locations. Yes, the church started keeping the records. Because they were the governmentment at the time. Later, marriage split in to a two part process, civil and religious. Atheists can get married. No problem. The church doesn't have to be involved in marriage, a ship's captain can do it. It has NOTHING to do with religion at all. And that's the point. Why argue religion's place in marriage, since it has no place in marriage? Marriage is not about religion, but property, First, the woman was the property at hand. She was often sold, given or promised to a man for goods or services or land. She had no say. She was property. Marriage is about 2000 plus legal rights under the law, probate, succession, taxation, etc, currently granted to any man and any woman, no matter their religious beliefs. Like Brittney spears, who got married while drunk and then 14 hours later got it annuled. Now that's sacred.

 

[final addition to this post]

 

Also, please don't bring up the Soddom and Gommorah story as evidence that God will destroy us if we allow gay marriage. Gays have been having sex in this country for over 200 years, and marriage RIGHTS have nothing to do with whether or not they have sex. Also, at Sodom and Ghomorra, the Angels at Lott's door wanted to come in and be with MEN, but Lott said no, instead, here, rape my daughters. So, where is the protection of children claim? This guy gave his daughters to be raped just so a few angels didn't have sex with a few men.

 

[color=darkred][color=red]I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...Thomas Jefferson, Third President, U.S.[/color][/color]

[Darkangelism]

Y'all know that thomas jefferson did not write the consituation right, he wrote the declaration of independence. He was not even in the US when the consituition was written. It was madison im pretty sure that was the driving force behind it. Or monrow, one of those two, my brain kinda fizzeled on me.

[jenny]

i think the document marks an interesting shift; the way it is headed the burden of proof and argument is now on those opposed to gay civil unions, at least in this country. this bill must go through a long and strenuous process of being opposed by groups before it will go anywhere - but it interests me that the burden is on those who seek to stop it now. zara: how long are most briefs?

 

i'm always sort of surprised when anyone even entertains the bible argument, as the bible is a great book, but is seldom considered actual, forensic-cum-moral, evidence of anything. (well, except for sweetbilly - hoping you're not getting too upset over this one )

 

i agree with dyer's point in another thread: let's forego the slippery slope argument for the rest of the thread, ok?

 

but, as far as the church question goes, and i think arabess raises an excellent and valid point, the document have this question for the court;

(from the link).

 

[the brief] posed three constitutional questions to the court seeking clarification that the government had the power to regulate marriage that the draft bill did not infringe on the those opposed to same-sex unions, and that churches had the right to refuse to perform gay marriages.

[zarathustra]

zara: how long are most briefs?

 

Most briefs, especially on substantive Constitutional questions, are much longer than 10 pages. That's nothing for an issue of this importance.

 

Most substantive briefs, at 12-14 point type, go from 30-50 pages, respectively.

 

I'd say the Government is very, very confident.

[reservoirdog1]

As a heterosexual male Canadian, and as somebody whose marriage was comprehensively desecrated by the repeated infidelity of a TBXW who was a staunch member of this country's right wing (the "family values party" -- what a f*cking joke), my view on gay marriage is quite simple.

 

I'm all for it. Homosexuals can't make a bigger mockery of the institution of marriage than so many heteros have already. If you ask me, the only thing that might have some hope of saving the institution would be to let in some "new blood". Who knows, maybe gay people will prove to have more respect for wedding vows than so many heteros do. Won't be that hard a standard to beat.

 

As a sidebar, the woman I'm dating spent Sunday at a barbecue. It was held in honour of a lesbian couple who had just gotten married (legally) and adopted a child.

 

I love Canada.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I was asked, “Aren’t civil unions enough?”—Certainly, I replied—if you make civil unions so that those civilly unioned were granted the 1000+ things that they’re not granted, and so that their protections aren’t just a statewide writeoff, but federally recognized.

 

Hey - Can somebody throw down the top 10 or so BIG advantages of being 'legally' married vs the civil unions? Many thanks.

 

 

Marriage is not about religion, but property.

 

Huh - And if democracy is not the guardian of private property as opposed to fuedal or nationalistic distribution of means and goods...than what is it?

 

Great post dyer, loved the summary on the history of marriage.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by wideawake

Hey - Can somebody throw down the top 10 or so BIG advantages of being 'legally' married vs the civil unions? Many thanks.

Civil unions are state things, while marriage is federal. It's been reported that there are 1049 Federal protections not granted to civil unioners--for example, social security benefits of the richer partner upon death. I don't have a list, I wish I did. Another obvious one is that if you get a civil union in state X, and then move to state Y, you're no longer joined.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.thesakeofargument.com/archives/000507.html

http://lcrcapac.org/5%20March%202004.htm

 

I'll start compiling a list when I get home from school, of what I think is most important. I'm sure I can get to the bottom of this one.