What does this mean, exactly?

The province of Alberta’s premier (I won’t say “my” premier - I had nothing to do with this) speaks on his government’s take on the new, soon-to-be legislation making same-sex marriage legal in Canada. From here:

Is that the same as “we’ll just take our ball and go home”?

(And just to be mean, what the hell is ‘‘We’re out on a lurch.’’ supposed to mean?)


Rather then accommodate people, they would rather stop all legal marriage, gay or straight.

Wait, thanks to “New Posts” I forgot where I am, the pit.

It means they are fucking assholes.

This makes them hypocrites, fyi.

Does it?

I interpret it to mean, “From now on, we leave ‘marriage’ to the church, and everyone who gets ‘wed’ in a civil ceremony - gay or straight - is in a ‘civil union’.”

I should think that’s actually kind of sensible, because it removes the religious element entirely from the civil (i.e. state-sponsored) ceremony and leaves the it to the churches.

What’s your reasoning?

Their insistence on taking away rights is a bad thing. This has already been discussed, time and time again here. However, how does hypocrisy come in? Because, you have just been whooshed.

Read my statement again. Now if you still don’t get it, read the below, the fact that I said they are “fucking assholes” can apply to me calling them a name, or it could mean that I am saying that they are actively performing homosexual acts.

Well, as someone who would prefer that government recognize all civil unions, and get out of the business of legitimitizing church marriages, i actually don’t think it’s a bad idea.

I believe that, as long as government does solemnize marriages, it should do so for everyone, no matter what sex the participants happen to be. But i’d be just as happy if it were civil unions for everyone, and leave the marriage stuff out of it.

I’m guessing it’s a mangling of “out on a limb” and “left in the lurch.”

Idealistic, but not very practical for this situation. One of the big advantaes of marriage is its portability – Alberta marriages are recognized everywhere in Canada, and even most other countries. ‘Civil Unions’? Not so much. Meaning, if Klein goes ahead with this, he’ll have taken the option of legally-portable and convenient marriage away from everyone.
… Anything to keep the gays from getting their hands on it, I guess.

Oh, that was a joke. Right.

So, I understand you to be saying that if you get “married” in Alberta, then leave the province, you would have to get re-“married” in a different province for it to be legal there, too? Cause that would suck, big time.

Klein is an asswipe of the highest degree. He’s not doing this because he thinks the govt. doesn’t belong in the marriage business, he’s doing it to be spiteful.

Honestly, I wish he would start drinking again - at least when he was an active alcoholic his brain was too addled with the booze to come up with these assholeish plans.

<grumble…sometimes I hate this province…grumble>

Maybe you should start a drive to send bottles of gin to his house…

Heh. This actually strikes me as a very good idea…

I think I need to take a break now. :slight_smile:

No, no, I’ll help! volunteers

The way I understand it, if Klein goes ahead with this, a marriage performed in a church would be a religious marriage for the puroses of that church (a ‘sacrament’ or a rite, or whatever) as always. But it would no longer be binding as a civil marriage – Alberta would no longer grant civil marriage licences.

Anyone not religious enough to get it done in a church would only have access to the civil unions. I don’t know to what extent civil unions are recognized between provinces (Quebec has civil unions, but I don’t know that anybody else does), and I don’t know if they’d be considered equivalent for the purposes of all the various laws that marriage is relevent to… taxes, pensions, spousal benefits, etc.

Presumably, other provinces would not enact similar civil union legislation (they all recognize same-sex marriages, so they’ve got no reason to) so when you move from Alberta to Manitoba, you’re not married, and your civil union may or may not be any good to the Manitoba government with regards to… whatever. Owning property, etc, etc. So the sensible thing would be to get a marriage, I guess.

And in Alberta people are surprised when they get labeled as rednecks. Maybe because your spokespeople like Klein and a few Bozo MPs come off as just that.

I’m never surprised. I just hang my head in shame.

Yeah, they sure do. I don’t really get that, either, because they don’t really echo the sentiment of the average Alberta Joe, in my experience.

I was wondering what his reaction on this would be. If Uvula Donor and mhendo are right in the interpretation, it’s much better than anything I had imagined.

I dunno… there’s only one person I know who feels anything like him on this issue, and she’s heavily religeous and ‘family oriented’, if that makes any sense. Everyone else I know doesn’t really care.

From here:

Huh. Okay, I still don’t get it.

Best case scenario, Alberta is just going to say to everybody who comes up to get married, "Okay, now remember, you’re not getting MARRIED here, this is a CIV-IL UN-ION. :wink: :wink: " – basically just changing the word they use, making “civil union” exactly the same as “marriage” and letting churches work out the semantics.

Worst case? “Civil union” won’t be the same as “marriage”, which (oddly) means they’re no longer saying that gay people can’t get married – after all, we Unitarian Universalists have been solemnizing gay marriage for decades and certainly won’t stop now – they’re saying that non-religious people can’t get married.


Actually, i was speaking more from the point of view of my general philosophy about the role of government in the institution of marriage.

For this particular case, however, i agree with alice_in_wonderland that Klein is a fuckstick who’s just trying to be spiteful now that the non-rednecks of Canada have made their decision about legalizing same sex marriage.