C'est fait : Canadian Senate passes same-sex marriage, royal assent expected tomorrow

47 for, 21 against

Adrienne’s say-so is expected tomorrow, and then we’ll have the right to marry from sea to sea to sea.

It’s been a long road, and it isn’t the last we have to walk, not by a long shot.

But you’ll excuse me if I get down at Pride next week :cool:

Hooray Canada! Just a month 'till I move there now…

Why should this year be any different from any other year?

Oh, you said get down.

Any word on whether Ralphie’s gonna invoke the Notwithstanding Clause or could he possibly bow gracefully to the will of history?

It’s so wonderful to read one piece of good news in the trainwreck that world public affairs seem to have become of late. I hope this makes a lot of people very happy.

As someone who has made the long journey from homophobe to supporter of gay rights (in no small part thanks to the SDMB) I say congratulations!

The quest for equal civil rights for all is a long one, and we can only go one step at a time. This is a good step.

King Ralph has announced that Alberta will recognize same-sex marriages without a legal fight, “much to his chagrin.” (Yes, those were his words.) He really has no choice. A province can’t Notwithstanding its way out of federal legislation. It just don’t work that way.

::pumps fist in air::

Hey Canadians! Y’all rock!

Well done, folks.

Kingsize kudos to you, Loopus. You’ll have to be careful lest I regain some faith in humanity. We can’t have that.

Oh, and congrats to Canada. It seems more and more attractive to move there every day. I don’t suppose you could see your way clear to move the country a bit south, to improve the climate? It would be a big help, really. I’d 'preciate it.

Well, there’s another country in the way, so we’d probably have to conquer them. And that would be impolite.

Reading the debates is interesting (Last Senate debate), especially the repetition of the same old misleading statements and outright lies by the bill’s opponents which appear over and over again in the previous Senate and Commons debates and in their public statements.

I am amused by the repeated declarations by the bill’s opponents that marriage as practiced in Canada for the last couple of centuries is “the institution of marriage as mankind has always known it”. The Hon. Senator is either insularly unaware of the variety of marriage practices used by mankind in different times and places, or is being dishonest. How many Islamic countries would accept “marriage as the relationship or legal commitment of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”?

I find the repeated concern over civil marriage commissioners (i.e. government employees whose job it is to register marriages) being forced to register same-sex marriages despite “their religious or conscientious objection to same-sex marriage” to be nasty. Why should someone’s private prejudices be permitted to allow them to refuse to carry out the government function they were hired to do. Would a devout Catholic be excused from registering a marriage between divorced people? A racist be excused because the two partners had different skin colours? I think there is a lot of prejudice or pandering to prejudice being displayed wrapped up in noble-sounding verbiage.

There are the repeated horrified predictions of religious organizations being forced to perform marriages which are against their religious beliefs, and “this bill does nothing to protect these rights” despite a specific clause in the bill that the rights are protected and a statement by the Supreme Court that the Charter specifically protects against this as a basic right.

Finally, there is the repeated references to marriage being about children, or for the benefit of children (which clearly leaves out those gays). No. Marriage law is not about procreation - it’s not even about loving relationships. It was and is about one thing and one thing only - the legal rights and obligations of the individuals involved in the marriage, and their heirs and successors. Excluding a significant minority from the same legal status under the law enjoyed by the majority is discrimination. Parliament has already said, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that such discrimination is no longer legal and that existing laws which are in conflict must be changed. This act simply recognizes the legal reality imposed by the Constitution.

Sorry about the rant, but for some reason, despite being a happily married middle-aged male heterosexual WASP, without any friends or relatives who are gay (that I know of), I seem to get very passionate about this particular type of prejudice and discrimination. Possibly because it seems to repeat the whole armoury of racism justification with a few name changes for the target minority.

Everybody should. This is our society: ‘our’ being all of us. We all have a place – an equal place – in it. Constant defence of that is what keeps us from systemic injustice and the nasty consequences that can come of it.

And of course, anyone who disagrees is evil.

Disagrees with what?

No, just misguided.

Hey, me too on all counts ( happily married middle-aged male heterosexual WASP who gets very passionate about this particular type of prejudice and discrimination.) Although I did in the past have some good friends who were gay (all have passed away, sadly). So don’t apologize for the rant, it was well-said.

I’m happy that Canada has moved beyond the seventeenth century in this regard. Now if the USA could manage it . . .

And as entitled to the same place in society as the rest of us.

It’s about time. Why should you guys be any happier than the rest of us.

Family law is about to get a big influx of new business.

:slight_smile:

Congratulations, Canadians! I hope to see the same thing here some day…

Update: Royal Assent was granted by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin yesterday evening. Our marriages are now equal before the law from sea to sea to sea.

Well done, everyone.