Matt mcl and Bookkeeper are from Canada. Is it in the UK or Canada or both?
Is there a reason everyone has to bring up incest with regards to gay marriage? Allowing one does not neccesitate allowing the other.
Canada, not the UK.
Eh, Canada, UK. All those European countries are the same, right?
Cheers, you lucky bastards.
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.
oh, come now. I know Stephen Harper is an evil prick, but that’s a little harsh.
Actually Canada. 
o/~ Sit on my face and tell me that you love me… o/~
All that actually means is that people still can’t be involved in more than one marriage at a time.
DAMMIT.
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.
Lucky for us, marriage also pre-dates religious objection to homosexuality. Yay!
Two comments:
-
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.
-
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?
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?
So does this restrict second marriages?
::Does a Stewie style head turn, and looks at Irwin Cotler::
::Stares::
::Holds the pose for a few seconds::
Solomon is going to be so pissed at you.
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.
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.
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.
Not so long as you get a divorce first. 
Section 8 of the bill makes a consequential amendment to the Divorce Act, another federal statute:
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.