# Marriage... is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 1, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827 "2005-02-01T18:39:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/1 "2005-02-01T18:39:43Z")
Update: Irwin Cotler, our Minister of Justice, has just [introduced](http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/01/same-sex050201.html) to the House of Commons, url=“[http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38\_1/C-38-4E.html](http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38-4E.html)”]Bill C-38, _An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes_. It is expected to pass by a slim margin: [160 are for, 132 are against, 11 are unsure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_38th_Parliament_and_same-sex_marriage). No word yet on when it might be voted on, or how quickly it would pass the Senate. For reference, here are the relevant parts: > [@](#): > > 1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act. > > 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. > > 3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. > > 4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex. It also provides for amendments to a variety of acts (including the _Divorce Act_, the \*Federal Law and Civil Law of the Province of Quebec Act \*, the _Income Tax Act_, and the _Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act_. I’ll keep you posted! ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/2 "2005-02-01T18:41:24Z")
Let’s try that URL again, shall we? [Bill C-38, _An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes_](http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38-4E.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/3 "2005-02-01T18:46:50Z")
I saw the thread title, and all I can hear is: “Mawwige. Mawwige is an institution…” ---
**Author:** ![Stringer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Stringer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringer)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/4 "2005-02-01T18:51:28Z")
Hmm, I mis-read the thread title as “Marriage… is the _awful_ union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/5 "2005-02-01T19:01:15Z")
And now, wesbians. ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/6 "2005-02-01T19:44:29Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > And now, wesbians. And their wonderful wovely wesbian wubbers. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/7 "2005-02-01T19:50:54Z")
You guys are _killing_ me! Death cannot stop True Gay Love. All it can do is delay it for a little while. _keeps fingers crossed_ ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/8 "2005-02-01T19:57:13Z")
Am I reading the bill wrong, or does it also allow marriage in the case of incestuous unions as well? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/9 "2005-02-01T20:06:15Z")
Not from what I can tell - it appears to just clarify the language of the law in forbidding sibling/half-sibling marriages (bottom of the page): > [@](#): > > (2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/10 "2005-02-01T20:23:54Z")
Ah, I didn’t see that. Thank you **Ferret Herder**. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Phatlewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Phatlewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phatlewt)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/11 "2005-02-01T21:24:28Z")
Including adoption? What’s the basis behind that restriction? ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/12 "2005-02-01T21:43:23Z")
I suppose it’s the societal notion of being siblings or related–as opposed to actual bloodlines. Not sure, to be honest 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/13 "2005-02-02T00:35:50Z")
Correct, **Kythereia** , the legal ban on incestuous unions existed primarily for the sake of preventing a disruption in the order of the family structure (within which, under the law, adoptees are just as much children and siblings as blood-relations), and the problems with genetic inbreeding are just evidence to _support_ the ban. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/14 "2005-02-02T04:50:37Z")
> [@Phatlewt](#): > > Including adoption? What’s the basis behind that restriction? There went my parents marriage! :eek: Seriously, my Mom was adopted as a child by my Dad’s parents. Believe me, I heard it all from my friends already! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Phatlewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Phatlewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phatlewt)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/15 "2005-02-02T15:03:00Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Correct, **Kythereia** , the legal ban on incestuous unions existed primarily for the sake of preventing a disruption in the order of the family structure (within which, under the law, adoptees are just as much children and siblings as blood-relations), and the problems with genetic inbreeding are just evidence to _support_ the ban. What is a disruption in the order of the family structure? Does this mean it would make people’s family tree’s look funny? Really, it’s just because it’s taboo, right? ---
**Author:** ![susan\_foster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@susan\_foster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan_foster)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/16 "2005-02-02T15:09:44Z")
Something about the exclusion of all others thing bothers me. It makes me think of couples where once they get married they seem to morph into one entity - like the wife can’t do anything without the husband. That annoys me. Susan ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/17 "2005-02-02T15:23:03Z")
> [@Phatlewt](#): > > What is a disruption in the order of the family structure? Does this mean it would make people’s family tree’s look funny? Really, it’s just because it’s taboo, right? Marital arguments and divorces are hard enough as it is, without having to still be related to the person you divorced. I’ve heard of enough situations where someone’s family sides with their ex instead of that person - if your relatives are also your inlaws, things are automatically sticky. Also, marrying a close relative brings in issues of coercion and potential childhood ‘brainwashing’ - what if Uncle Bob thought that his little niece Suzy was looking lovely, and had been telling her for years to keep a “secret” that once she got all grown up, he was going to ditch her aunt and marry her? What if a family adopted a little girl and her older adopted brother pulled a similar stunt? Or to boil it down to simpler terms, “disruption in the order of the family structure.” Too much extra potential for chaos, manipulation, and abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/18 "2005-05-05T20:10:29Z")
Just a quick update for those interested. Bill C-38 has passed second reading (Wed May 4 by 163 Yea to 138 Nay votes). I expect there’s a slim chance it will get to third reading and be passed before an election is called, but at least under the current procedural rules it can be re-introduced at the same stage if the new government chooses to do so rather than having to be restarted from scratch. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/19 "2005-05-05T20:29:42Z")
It took me a disturbingly long time to realize this bill is being considered in the United Kingdom, not the United States. I’m not Americentric, nooo, not at all … ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/20 "2005-05-05T21:05:06Z")
> [@susan\_foster](#): > > Something about the exclusion of all others thing bothers me. It makes me think of couples where once they get married they seem to morph into one entity - like the wife can’t do anything without the husband. That annoys me. Naw, it’s just an admonition to all those homos out there that they can’t go getting married on paper just to reap the benefits while maintaining the wildly promiscuous lifestyle those degenerates are known for. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827.md?page=2)