# Homosexuals marry and the Republic falls; how? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940 "2003-06-24T03:51:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Muldoon\_s\_Squishiness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/13edae/32.png) [@Muldoon\_s\_Squishiness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muldoon_s_Squishiness)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/21 "2003-06-24T14:56:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > **What interests me is that the States recognize Canadian marriages. If you go to Canada and get married, then you are considered married when you returned to the States. Will the Congress change this tradition? Will the President issue an executive order?** I recall that the White House issued a statement saying that gay marriages performed in Canada **would not** be recognized in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/22 "2003-06-24T15:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BogieBlanca \* > \*\*I recall that the White House issued a statement saying that gay marriages performed in Canada **would not** be recognized in the United States. \*\* Well, so much for Federalism. It’s been, until DOMA, the powr of each state to decide what constitutes a valid marriage within its borders and between its domiciled residents, with the other states bound to honor its decisions as regards its own citizens by the principle of comity and the Full Faith and Credit clause. That of course does not apply to foreign marriages, even those contracted in Canada. But it would (if we were still following the U.S. Constitution) be the right of North Carolina, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Vermont, Hawaii, and the other 45 states to decide whether to recognize a Canadian marriage or not. The President has no more right to make such a proclamation than he does to choose the next Governor of Illinois, or whether Georgia will legally close its bars at 2:00 AM. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/23 "2003-06-24T15:12:23Z")
So … Sanctity of marriage = “man and woman marry for the purpose of having children”, and all deviations from that destroy the sanctity of marriage, right? That seems to be the argument vs. gay marriage. So, if they continue to see gay marriage as criminal in this context, then I don’t see how the “sanctity of marriage” can be preserved, unless we start criminalizing having babies out of wedlock. To be fair and just, we should arrest all unwed mothers and the fathers of those babies and jail them. ---
**Author:** ![Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/35a633/32.png) [@Susma\_Rio\_Sep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susma_Rio_Sep)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/24 "2003-06-24T15:22:23Z")
I don’t see any problems with homos and lesbians getting married. They must have real love to be interested in submitting themselves to the mutual rights/obligations of marriage as with heteros. It’s good for them to settle down instead of engaging in surreptitious and secretive relations. If you feel uncomfortable, don’t. A lot of people were not comfortable with blacks and whites marrying. Now, I think they are used to such marriages. What I would like to see countries allowing homo and lesbian marriages is to impose a tax on such couples, unless and until they adopt an unwanted child to bring up properly. Of course assuming that they are competent. On the other hand, the homo or lesbian couple can apply for exemption from this duty and also from the tax liability for good reasons, like they are too old or they don’t have the finances needed. No, no, no, it ain’t wrong and it won’t do any harm to society, except ruffle the sensibilities of people who cannot accept changes. Susma Rio Sep ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/25 "2003-06-24T15:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep \* > \*\*What I would like to see countries allowing homo and lesbian marriages is to impose a tax on such couples, unless and until they adopt an unwanted child to bring up properly. \*\* On what pretense would this tax be based? And why not impose such a tax on _every_ married couple until they have a child or adopt one? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/26 "2003-06-24T15:51:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*The President has no more right to make such a proclamation than he does to choose the next Governor of Illinois, or whether Georgia will legally close its bars at 2:00 AM. \*\* Well, that’s not exactly true. The president has the right to make the determination if the federal government is going to recognize the marriages. So he can say that people married in Canada couldn’t apply for survivor’s social security benefits, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/27 "2003-06-24T16:22:49Z")
**cowgirl** , what about judicial activism when the judges _don’t_ agree with your postion on the issues? Don’t excuse legislative cowardice. Worse yet, don’t assume that judges can legislate in the stead of the cowards we elect. It’s not acceptable behavior for the legislature to abdicate for political cover. What’s the point of having one? ---
**Author:** ![Bobby\_Roberts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Bobby\_Roberts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobby_Roberts)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/28 "2003-06-24T16:25:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priceguy \* > \*\*While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I must disagree with this. Absolutely nothing says that you’re promiscuous unless you marry, and aren’t promiscuous if you marry. Living in a monogamous relationship has nothing to do with what religious rituals and ceremonies you choose to go through. \*\* Ah, but by not allowing people to commit to spending their lives in a monogamous relationship, the government is inherrently saying that it prefers for homosexuals to not be committed to monogamy. There is a distinct difference between living in a monogamous relationship with someone and committing to marriage with that person. You can disagree with me as you like, but I definitely believe that marriage creates a special bond with another person. This bond goes beyond just being committed to one person and it is much more difficult to break than just moving out on that person. Granted, many who are married do not treat their marriage this way, but by denying certain people the right to do so only makes it easier for them to break their relationship. This promotes the notion that homosexual relationship do not mean as much as heterosexual relationships do. By promoting that idea, you are promoting a more promiscuous lifestyle. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/29 "2003-06-24T17:04:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bobby Roberts \* > **Ah, but by not allowing people to commit to spending their lives in a monogamous relationship, the government is inherrently saying that it prefers for homosexuals to not be committed to monogamy.** Fair enough. I misunderstood your earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/30 "2003-06-24T17:53:37Z")
I am in favor of using reason. But I recently read an article that reviewed a book about why drug use is not so bad and should be legalized. The reviewer’s position was “hey, you wrote a great, well reasoned book. And that’s exactly the problem: when was reason ever prevailed against a witch hunt?” I’m still in favor of reason, but I have to agree with the reviewer. It’s often futile trying to change people’s minds, because it isn’t their minds that are the problem in the first place. you have to change their hearts. For the record, Santorum’s desire to criminalize homosexuality is nothing compared to Pryor, the ultra-extreme judge that Bush nominated last April. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/31 "2003-06-24T18:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > For the record, Santorum’s desire to criminalize homosexuality is nothing compared to Pryor, the ultra-extreme judge that Bush nominated last April. For the record, we would need to de-criminalize many of the inherited Common Law crimes before Santorum could re-criminalize them. That’s where the legislature comes in. Give Santorum credit, at least you know to vote against him. Hillary Clinton recently weighed in on gay marriage. You might be surprised at the way she waffled on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/32 "2003-06-24T18:21:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cowgirl \* > **The whole “judicial activism” label bugs me. The way it looks to me is that the politicians have realized that any one of them who takes that step to “legalize” it (marriage, pot, whatever) is going to have some trouble getting re-elected. No one has the guts to take the steps that people are asking them to take (it is quite risky), so they leave it to the courts to decide. Thus difficult decisions get made because the politicians use the judges, in a way, to make the call and take the flak. The politicians end up winning both ways - the decision gets made and they don’t have to appear to agree with it, so everyone’s happy ! Plus it’s the JOB of the courts and the judges to interpret laws. That’s what they’re there for. That’s how the system was designed.** Exactly; it’s the job of the judges to _interpret laws._ But I think you’ll agree the interpretation of law has to at least bear some relevance to what the legislatures actually wrote, which in this case it may not have. I understand the federal government’s allowing the courts to do their dirty work for them. I don’t consider that to be a good thing. The legislature is supposed to lead on these matters, not lag behind, if for no other reason than nothing will be accomplished unless the courts happen to hear a noteworthy case. Placing unelected people in a position of directing elected people as to matters of legislation is NOT a positive development, even if (as in this case) they happened to make a decision that effects a positive change. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that our government did not make this change themselves, and it’s not a good thing if we’re now foisting the job of progressive legislation off on people who aren’t legislators. That absolutely is NOT the way it was designed the work. I agree that some people are using this argument to mask their general distaste for homosexuals, but I’m not, and it’s still a valid argument. My preference would be for the government to do what it did in 1969 with ending the criminalization of homosexuality; take a moral stand and say “No, we’re passing this law to update things to the way they should be, and if you don’t like it vote us out.” > [@](#): > > The other problem I have with this whole debate is the “Well, this is the way things have always been” argument. This line of ‘reasoning’ has been used against ending slavery, allowing women or minorities to vote, banning anti-miscegenation laws, and so on, and so on. Well, you’ll get no argument from me. If “the way it’s always been” was the way it should always be, we wouldn’t need a legislature, would we? > [@](#): > > The other argument that bugs me, which hasn’t reared its ugly head in this thread yet but is in at least one Letter to the Editor a day, it seems: “The majority of Canadians don’t want this.” Even if this were true (in some areas of the country it may be) it’s still not a vaild argument. > > The point of a democracy is not that the majority gets to decide what it wants, but that the elected representatives make decisions which protect the minority. \*\* I disagree. I think **its a valid argument,** though it doesn’t convince me. It’s not enough in my eyes to justify the old law - but it’s certainly a valid argument. The will of the people should be considered. Sometimes you have to go against the will of the people to do what’s right anyway. But I’m not even convinced the majority of Canadians ARE opposed to gay marriage. I get the sense it depends who’s running the poll, but I certainly don’t know anyone who’s angry about this, and I don’t run in super-liberal crowds or anything. There seems to be a live-and-let-live attitude among most people, which IMHO is reason enough to have gay marriage laws. You run your life the way you want, and let others run theirs the way they want. ---
**Author:** ![urban1a](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47c2d/32.png) [@urban1a](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urban1a)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/33 "2003-06-24T23:29:06Z")
> [@](#): > > What I would like to see countries allowing homo and lesbian marriages is to impose a tax on such couples, unless and until they adopt an unwanted child to bring up properly. Of course assuming that they are competent. On the other hand, the homo or lesbian couple can apply for exemption from this duty and also from the tax liability for good reasons, like they are too old or they don’t have the finances needed. And, of course, heterosexual couples, incapable of of having children, would also have to pay this tax until they adopted an unwanted child? Bob ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/34 "2003-06-24T23:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by urban1z \* > \*\*And, of course, heterosexual couples, incapable of of having children, would also have to pay this tax until they adopted an unwanted child? > > Bob \*\* Thanks, Bob. **Susma** , Barb and I are one of the couples Bob cites. Any particular reason why we, or **gobear** and Matt, or **Mr Visible** and his partner, should have to pay an extra tax? (You might make note that by being unable to claim exemptions for children, most of Earned Income Credit, Child Credit, child care credit, etc., we already are paying extra tax.) And, be it noted, when we had opportunity we did open our home to some kids at risk (but did not adopt; they _had_ parents from whom they were estranged) and both gay couples I’ve noted are in fact contemplating adoption when they are financially able to do so. Or is this a new variation on the good old policy of “Make rules that affect other people, because they’re bad; find loopholes for me, because I’m good” that you may be familiar with? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/35 "2003-06-25T01:49:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*But the argument that it should be Parliament, not the courts, that writes the laws within the framework of the Constitution is a very strong argument indeed. \*\* Can’t the case be made that Parliament already made the laws and the SC finally told them what the laws they made meant? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/36 "2003-06-25T02:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > For the record, we would need to de-criminalize many of the inherited Common Law crimes before Santorum could re-criminalize them. That’s where the legislature comes in. Give Santorum credit, at least you know to vote against him. Why give him credit for holding a position I find to be inexcusably immoral? > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton recently weighed in on gay marriage. You might be surprised at the way she waffled on the issue. Why assume I a) have any interest in Hillary Clinton’s particular stance and b) don’t know what it is already? We already have a poster here recylcing Sullivan blogs, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/37 "2003-06-25T02:21:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Raygun99 \* > \*\*Can’t the case be made that Parliament already made the laws and the SC finally told them what the laws they made meant? \*\* I think that’s what the courts are doing. The issue is whether by “what it means” they’re actually judging what it means, or deciding what they WANT it to mean, which are two very different things. ---
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/38 "2003-06-25T03:17:34Z")
Obviously, allowing gay marriages will make everyone want to join the gay scene. Then, everyone will get married to their brother or sister, have sex with animals, and hang around primary school toilets. We must halt this homosexual menace before it destroys the values that hold together the ‘fabric’ of society, if you will. Seriously though, you would have to be pretty paranoid to think that homoseual marriage is going to cause the collapse of society as we know it. That’s up to the communists of the world. * * * ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/39 "2003-06-25T18:02:11Z")
As a friend of mine once put it, some people negatively say gay men are promiscuous, but when asked to be able to join in a monogamous relationship, they’re not allowed to. How catch-22 can you get? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940/40 "2003-06-25T18:46:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > There is not actually anything in the Canadian constitution that specifically justifies the decision; sexual preference isn’t a prohibited form of discrimination in Sec. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an omission that was not accidental. Perhaps you have a different copy of the Charter than I do? 1. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The second half of 15(1), i.e., the list of grounds for discrimination explicitly banned, is extremely secondary in this statement. “_Every_ individual … has the right to … equal benefit of the law without discrimination.” Same-sex couples were being denied equal benefit on discriminatory grounds. The fact that the specific grounds aren’t mentioned in the “in particular” bit doesn’t mean it’s all hunky dory. I’d imagine the courts would find that discrimination against redheads violates 15(1), too, even though hair colour is nowhere mentioned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuals-marry-and-the-republic-falls-how/183940.md?page=3)