# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![FilmGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@FilmGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FilmGeek)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/21 "2005-05-05T21:07:56Z")
Matt mcl and Bookkeeper are from Canada. Is it in the UK or Canada or both? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/22 "2005-05-05T21:10:10Z")
> [@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? Is there a reason everyone has to bring up incest with regards to gay marriage? Allowing one does not neccesitate allowing the other. ---
**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:** [May 5, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/23 "2005-05-05T21:26:22Z")
> [@FilmGeek](#): > > Matt mcl and Bookkeeper are from Canada. Is it in the UK or Canada or both? Canada, not the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/24 "2005-05-06T01:32:01Z")
Eh, Canada, UK. All those European countries are the same, right? 😃 Cheers, you lucky bastards. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/25 "2005-05-06T02:39:19Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Is there a reason everyone has to bring up incest with regards to gay marriage? Allowing one does not neccesitate allowing the other. Well, yeah, because if you allow gays to get married then you have to allow incestuous marriage too, and polygamy, and what if someone wanted to marry their cat, or their dog, or their living room sofa. I have heard local conservative talk show hosts make these arguments. In all seriousness. Yes, they were actually, seriously, in a non-satirical way arguing that allowing gay marriage would pave the way for people being allowed to marry furniture. And, well, I have this really cute rocking chair in my living room. ---
**Author:** ![MrFantsyPants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MrFantsyPants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrFantsyPants)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/26 "2005-05-06T02:58:25Z")
> [@Kythereia](#): > > Death cannot stop True Gay Love. All it can do is delay it for a little while. oh, come now. I know Stephen Harper is an evil prick, but that’s a little harsh. ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/27 "2005-05-06T03:09:47Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > 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 … Actually Canada. 😉 ---
**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:** [May 6, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/28 "2005-05-06T03:17:00Z")
> [@The Asbestos Mango](#): > > And, well, I have this really cute rocking chair in my living room. o/~ Sit on my face and tell me that you love me… o/~ ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/29 "2005-05-06T03:22:05Z")
> [@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. > > Susan All that actually means is that people still can’t be involved in more than one marriage at a time. ---
**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 6, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/30 "2005-05-06T03:25:59Z")
> [@bouv](#): > > Actually Canada. 😉 DAMMIT. ---
**Author:** ![PastAllReason](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f07891/32.png) [@PastAllReason](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastAllReason)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/31 "2005-05-06T03:30:43Z")
Reading **matt\_mcl** ’s link to wikipedia, it appears that Art Hanger is yet again displaying his intelligence (assuming the wikipedia article is conveying his views accurately): “April 05th: While in 2nd reading, he stated that never in his wildest dreams did he think parlimanet would be here today redefining the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Says marriage pre-dates the existence of Canada, and says we have to solve this issue via a national referendum.” Marriage pre-dating the existence of Canada as a defining criteria? Yeah, well that’s what matters most, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/32 "2005-05-06T03:32:03Z")
Lucky for us, marriage also pre-dates religious objection to homosexuality. Yay! ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/33 "2005-05-06T03:52:28Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > 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. Two comments: 1. Even if it makes third reading in the Commons before an election is called, that doesn’t mean it comes into force. Then it has to go to the Senate, and be passed there. For some reason, there’s not been anything in the media discussing its chances of passage in the Senate on a free vote. 2. I thought that the rules change only meant that a bill could be revived from session to session within the same Parliament. If it’s not passed prior to dissolution, doesn’t it have to start all over? I didn’t think the revival rule applied to bills on the order paper from the previous Parliament? ---
**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:** [May 6, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/34 "2005-05-06T06:36:45Z")
What was the original reason for having all bills die upon the dissolution of Parliament? Why, governmentally speaking, couldn’t we make it so that important bills can be ‘resurrected’ in a new parliament without having to go through the whole process again? Are bills ever ‘expedited’ in view of the consideration they’ve already received, or will we have to have the whole travelling commission rigmarole? ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/35 "2005-05-06T07:47:40Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > 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=“[Parliament of Canada - Parlement du Canada](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: > > 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! So does this restrict second marriages? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/36 "2005-05-06T13:50:24Z")
::Does a Stewie style head turn, and looks at Irwin Cotler:: ::Stares:: ::Holds the pose for a few seconds:: [Solomon](http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm) is going to be so pissed at you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/37 "2005-05-06T14:07:40Z")
Applause to Canada! This is an excellent development, both for the merits of the matter as they apply to Canadians, as well as a chance for the states down here to see that permitting same-sex marriage does not cause the destruction of society and lead to bands of nomads wandering the burning ruins of Western civilization. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/38 "2005-05-06T14:27:16Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > What was the original reason for having all bills die upon the dissolution of Parliament? > > Why, governmentally speaking, couldn’t we make it so that important bills can be ‘resurrected’ in a new parliament without having to go through the whole process again? > > Are bills ever ‘expedited’ in view of the consideration they’ve already received, or will we have to have the whole travelling commission rigmarole? Originally, it was that the business of one session of Parliament ended when the session ended. So if the first session of the Parliament ended without a particular bill being passed, it had to be re-introduced at the next session. That dated back to the days of the British parliament, when a session might just be a couple of months. It could be several months (or in extreme case, years) before the King summoned the Parliament again, so it made sense to say that any business that did not pass by the end of session just disappeared: “died on the order paper.” Now, with Parliament sitting for a much greater portion of the year, the idea of business dying at the end of a session doesn’t make much practical sense. Hence the reform to the rules of the Canadian House of Commons. Bills on the order paper at the end of the last session don’t automatically carry forward to the new session, but they’re not dead, either. The House has to vote to carry them forward. If so, consideration of the bill carries forward from the stage it was at when the last session was prerogued. However, as indicated in my earlier post, I’m not sure if that reform also applies to a bill that was on the order paper when the Parliament was dissolved and an election held. To my mind, there’s a significant difference between saying that a bill can carry forward from session to session within the same Parliament, when there’s no change of government, and carrying forward a bill from one Parliament to the next, after an election. An election is a fresh start, a referendum on the government. I would have thought that everything on the order paper at dissolution would die, but I’m not familiar enough with the recent reform to know if that’s the case or not. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/39 "2005-05-06T14:33:26Z")
yay, Canada–once again, our brothers to the North are before us in humane issues. but this poses a sticky problem. What happens when Canuck love gets a job in USA? Does their marriage dissolve? I guess if their Canadian citizenship doesn’t end, then it wouldn’t, right? But if you wanted to become an American for some reason, would that null and void the union? I foresee a court case in the not so distant future re: this. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827/40 "2005-05-06T14:33:42Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > So does this restrict second marriages? Not so long as you get a divorce first. 😛 [Section 8](http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38-4E.html) of the bill makes a consequential amendment to the Divorce Act, another federal statute: > [@](#): > > **8.** (1) The definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) of the Divorce Act is replaced by the following: > > “spouse” means either of two persons who are married to each other. So if the bill passes, it sets a new definition for marriage, and follows through by taking that new definition into account for purposes of divorce as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-the-lawful-union-of-two-persons-to-the-exclusion-of-all-others/287827.md?page=3)