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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
Fair enough. I misunderstood your earlier post.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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?
Can’t the case be made that Parliament already made the laws and the SC finally told them what the laws they made meant?
Why give him credit for holding a position I find to be inexcusably immoral?
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.
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.
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.
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
Perhaps you have a different copy of the Charter than I do?
- (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.