marriage

[inked]

Boy, I can neither type nor proofread this AM. The link above regards marriage in SCANDINAVIA.

Nurv, I think the report gives the lie to "not much is happening" tone in your "nothing super exciting" comment. I find it TOO exciting and very disturbing!

[Nurvingiel]

No worries inked, I knew what you meant anyway.

*rereads last post*

I did exempt gay marriage from my "not too super exciting" comment - IOW it's the only exciting thing. You're right, it is exciting. I, however, view it in a more positive light. I'm currently looking for some more references on the subject, but I do have to study tonight too. Don't let me forget if I don't do it tonight.

EDIT:
Here's one: Gay marriage in Scandinavia

EDIT2:
The above link is quoting this article. The link that inked posted is a rebuttle to this article (or maybe vise versa. Both authors make references to each other.)

[katya]

Ok, Inked. I read most of the article. (I'm nototious for starting articles and not finishing them, especially long ones...) Basically this is what I got out of it:
In Scandinavia, people are starting to think of marriage something other than being just for procreation. Marriage without children, and children without marriage are more common because procreation and marriage are not as closely linked.
The reasons may be because of various societal influences including increased secularism (and the riddance of the idea that premarital child-bearing is sinful?). Also, the increase in gay marriage has contributed to the separation of procreation/marriage idea.
The harmful effect? Statistics show that children of single mothers are more likely to have a harder time in life. Various problems arise from the lack of a stabel, tradtional family environment.
Is marriage today becoming obselete, as the trend in Scandanavia seems to show, or is it stil vitally necessary? If the institution is so important to children, attention needs to be payed to the decrease in marriage and it's possible trigger of same-sex marriage.

This is pretty much the only valid point I've heard on the negative effects of same-sex marriage. Interesting, thank you.

I didn't read Nurvi's articles yet though. Too tired. >.<

For same-sex marriage being such a small chunk of what marriage is, we sure do like to discuss it a lot. *sigh* But I suppose that's necessary. In a way.

[inked]

Well, Katya, you did ask for information regarding marrriage! And I had basically answered your questionnaire before it was published with regard to the bulk of human marriage data, so ... what's an honest researcher to do?

I think that the data give a prliminary indication of what the issue is about, don't you?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by katya

For same-sex marriage being such a small chunk of what marriage is, we sure do like to discuss it a lot. *sigh* But I suppose that's necessary. In a way.

It's only because those that are for it are trying to change legislation and stuff, which is understandable, given their beliefs. And given the beliefs of those against it, it's also understandable! When this wasn't happening, it wasn't such a hot topic.

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, Katya, you did ask for information regarding marrriage! And I had basically answered your questionnaire before it was published with regard to the bulk of human marriage data, so ... what's an honest researcher to do?

I think that the data give a prliminary indication of what the issue is about, don't you?

I don't know if I quite understand what you're saying. It wasn't a questionnaire, but a summary of what we had established so far and an indication of the direction I wanted to go (namely, into a discussion of marriage around the world- what about Asia? Africa? other places that might have differing ideas of marriage).

As for the article you linked to, I read almost the whole thing just so I didn't get behind in discussion but I really don't want to get into the issue quite yet.

RÃ*an, darling (I miss you, by the way.), I know what you mean. It's current, and it invokes a lot of emotion, so people want to talk about it. And, it's necessary even with general discussion because it involves the complications surrounding the formation of a clear "definition" of marriage in that it involves the possibilty of change.

I'm going to go look up some stuff right now. Peace and love, everybody!^^

[Rían]

Wasn't that Tengwar thread wonderful? I miss you too, katya. I haven't written in Tengwar for awhile, except a word here and there - have you?

Hey, since this is about marriage, should we include Tolkien's descriptions of marriage for elves?

[katya]

Oh definately!! How fun!! Haha yeah, I suppose if you want to. The main idea is this: it's a wide world out there, and it's hard to discuss anything with out reading the whole book first. How can I say what the universal idea of marriage is when I only know about a couple different cultures?

As for the beautiful Tengwar, I think I forgot most of it to make room for katakana, hiragana, and kanji. You know, the stuff I get graded on in school. Maybe I should re-memorize it though. I'll make it an early New Year's resolution. *ahem* back on topic now.

[inked]

Katya,

You would save a lot of time comparing cultures for the basic definition of relationship between sexes for the reasons I gave, but, hey, it's your time!

Alternatively, you could study the paucity of other definitions!

[Nurvingiel]

I think what's Katya's getting at is that there are more aspects to marriage than just gender, and that those other aspects would also be interesting to talk about.

I'll be back with ideas, but I have to study something far less interesting than this thread first.

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

Katya,

You would save a lot of time comparing cultures for the basic definition of relationship between sexes for the reasons I gave, but, hey, it's your time!

Alternatively, you could study the paucity of other definitions!

And I read your definition and thought it was good. I guess I'd want to have a definition like that be a conclusion based on study, not just based on the comments of smart people.
Anyway, yeah, there are other aspects that are interesting.
OK, back to the math homework...

[inked]

Hey, NURV, it ain't over til its over, but I thought you said this had been decided.

Inked

+++++++++++++++++++++



News : Canada Supreme Court Gives Its Blessing to Homosexual 'Marriage'- Responses
Posted by dvirtue on 2004/12/14 7:57:00 (161 reads)
Canada Supreme Court Gives Its Blessing to Homosexual 'Marriage' - Legislative Fight Next

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its unanimous 9-0 opinion this morning on the reference questions on same-sex 'marriage' put forward by the Liberal Government of Canada. The decision gives the legal go-ahead for the government's stated intention to introduce same-sex marriage legislation. It does, however, require the government to introduce such legislation, as many had expected might have been the result if the mostly activist judges answered the government's fourth reference question.

The Court judges rendered their opinion that the federal government has exclusive control over determining the legal capacity to marry and thus may allow persons of the same sex to wed. They also ruled that the proposed legislation to allow such marriages, which the Justice Minister has indicated will be introduced in Parliament early January, is constitutional. Finally, the court ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevented religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform homosexual 'marriages'.

The judges significantly declined to answer the fourth question on whether the current laws upholding traditional marriage were unconstitutional.

(See the exact wording of the reference questions and the proposed legislation here:
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/n...doc_31110.html )

The Court compared the failure to recognize women as persons to the refusal to grant 'marriage' rights to same-sex persons. It quoted a lawyer in a Canadian women's rights case who claimed that "several centuries ago it would have been understood that persons should refer only to men." Launching from that quotation, in a revealing low blow at pro-family advocates, the justices opined, "Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples". The justices did not acknowledge that such an understanding is still dominant in almost all the world and that the aggressive challenges to traditional marriage were launched only very recently in some developed nations.

Continuing from their insinuation of a Middle Ages mentality held by traditional marriage defenders, the justices stated, "The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today." The Canadian "jurisdictions" or provinces to which the judges referred were all subject to decisions by activist judges who imposed legislative changes on the provinces.

While Prime Minister Paul Martin vowed a free vote would be permitted on the matter, it has been revealed that there will be no free vote for nearly 70 of the just over 300 members of Parliament since cabinet members and their parliamentary secretaries are to be forced to vote in favor of the homosexual 'marriage' legislation.

Life and Family groups in Canada are encouraging Canadians to contact their MPs in their constituency offices and urge them to vote against any government legislation which approves of homosexual 'marriage'.

See the full Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...cc079.wpd.html

[inked]

continued...

Canadian Pro-Family Groups Respond To Supreme Court Reference Decision

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most Canadian pro-family groups have strongly criticized the Supreme Court today for its response to the Liberal government's reference to the Court on its not yet formally introduced nor voted upon legislation to allow homosexual 'marriage'.

Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes said, "The Supreme Court has chosen to direct government legislation rather than telling Parliament that they should draft, debate and vote on such legislation before the Courts speak."

Hughes called the Prime Minister to task for trying to "stifle legitimate debate by having the Court rule before draft legislation has even been presented to Parliament". He continued "We are a free nation ruled by elected representatives and more and more we are being ruled by an un-elected judiciary and not by our own elected representatives. The cart is definitely before the horse."

CLC is urging Canadians to "contact their MPs in their constituency offices" and "to vote against any government legislation which approves of 'same-sex' marriage".

REAL Women Canada notes that "To pass this controversial same-sex marriage bill, the Prime Minister requires, because of his split caucus, that all 39 Cabinet Ministers and possibly the 28 Parliamentary Secretaries, vote for the bill." Gwen Landolt of REAL Women charged that Canadians represented by these Parliamentarians "will be disenfranchised on this most crucial question of this generation."

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization has urged "Members of Parliament to have a full, informed and vigorous debate on this issue," and asked that "there be a free vote so that all members may vote according to their conscience." The CCCB said it intends to be part of the debate and urged all Catholics, "especially those who have the experience of marriage, to play an active role" in the debate. In its statement the CCCB did not explicitly call for defeat of the upcoming legislation nor did it urge Catholics to work for that defeat.

Bishop Richard Smith, President of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops told LifeSiteNews.com, "We would hope that all lay Catholics would make their views known to the MPs that we do want any legislation that's going to alter substantially the nature of marriage defeated, and we would hope that Catholic politicians in particular would act accordingly."

Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin gave the strongest Catholic response by reminding Catholic law-makers of the Church's teaching that they have a moral duty to clearly oppose the legislation and that voting in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is "gravely immoral."

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) denounced the Supreme Court's decision "as an unprecedented pre-empting of parliamentary debate by the judiciary."

CCRL President Phil Horgan stated, "The court should have returned the reference questions to Parliament for the proper stages of the introduction and debate of a bill before they gave an opinion." Commenting on the precedent-setting nature of the decision, Horgan said, "As far as we know, this is the first time the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on proposed legislation before it was introduced in the House. Involving the court at this stage was an attempt to circumvent the democratic process in order to impose a fundamental social change that many Canadians do not want. This is a bad and dangerous precedent that could be invoked in future to stifle debate on other divisive social issues".

The CCRL head advocated an active response to the government's intent to pass legislation now given a go ahead by the Court. Horgan said, "Parliament still must introduce and debate this legislation before it becomes law. We will be working with all Canadians who value true marriage to defeat any legislation in favour of same sex marriage every step of the way. The decision must now be made by the public and their elected officials, not the courts. We want MPs to know that they will be held accountable."

The CCRL is demanding that the Prime Minister and his Party "call off their whips in caucus and cabinet" so that the Members of Parliament will be able "to vote their consciences on legislation going to the core of their beliefs". "The true test of religious and conscientious freedom in Canada" says the CCRL, "will not be limited to churches and their congregations."

REAL Women, Focus on the Family and Canada Family Action Coalition have also responded by calling for a national referendum on the issue.

Campaign Life Coalition Press Release
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com...todecision.htm

Catholic Civil Rights League Release
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=201

Canada Family Action Coalition release
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles...endum-call.htm

CCCB Release
http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements.htm?CD=&ID=1602

Protection for Religious Freedom in Homosexual 'Marriage' Legislation "Very Weak"

OTTAWA, December 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Canadian Supreme Court opinion giving the proposed Liberal legislation on same-sex 'marriage' the green light has "very weak" protection for freedom of religion, according to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision today, Harper noted that the Court has made assurances for freedom of religion beyond what is covered in the legislation.

The draft legislation states only that "Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs." However, many questions regarding religious freedom and the proposed legislation remain unanswered. Even the Supreme Court opinion widened, albeit slightly, the draft legislation's religious freedom protection.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) organization welcomed the affirmation by the Court which indicates that "The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in our Charter jurisprudence". The CCCB continued, "We are pleased that religious officials are protected 'from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs', and that this judgment confirms that freedom of religion also prevents 'the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages'.

Beyond protection for church ministers, and church buildings, however, questions remain about the fate and lack of protection for civil officials whose faiths or consciences prevent them from solemnizing such "marriages". Marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already been ordered to perform such 'marriages' or lose their jobs.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops anticipates that the Ontario government, with the support of the opposition parties, will now enact legislation to give form and substance to the protections indicated by the Supreme Court.

However, that anticipation may lead to disappointment given Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's well-known views on moral issues which are often diametrically opposed to the teachings of his Church. Responding to the ruling as an indication to go forward with homosexual 'marriage', McGuinty said, "I'm proud of the fact that we've moved forward . . . It's the right thing to do."

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
MPs Tells Provinces to Stop Forcing Marriage Commissioners to Solemnize Gay Marriages
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04112402.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey, Nurv, what gives? Rule by judges before elected officials even make legislation?

[brownjenkins]

good for canada!

i think this puts it pretty well (from the ruling):

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

[inked]

brownjenkins,

My point is that it is not the law in Canada! It is a prior Court ruling on legislation that doesn't exist. Goooooo, Canada!

[Nurvingiel]

Aha, now I see what you were referring to in the GLB thread. I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but I can tell you one thing that REAL Women et al have disregarded, possibly by accident. (Or maybe on purpose because it really deflates their argument.)

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (I have a copy at home, but I'm going off the cuff over here) states that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. The Charter exists to protect all Canadian citizens, no matter what province or territory they live in. One of the reasons it exists is to ensure that there is a unifying protection of people's rights upon which a challenge of an unfair law can be based. The Charter was created in 1982 by then Prime Minister Pierre Eliott Trudeau.

Traditional Canadian marriage laws were challenged in our highest courts (the Supreme court). The judges agreed that saying that a gay couple couldn't marry based on their sexual orientation was against the Charter.

Since that ruling, provinces have been updating their laws to more accurately relect the spirit and the law of the Charter.

I haven't been misleading you because whenever I make Canadian legal refences about gay rights I'm usually referring to the Charter, where all our rights are protected.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes me feel secure and protected. I seriously love the Charter. It is a Canadian icon of great cultural significance, and it is one of the things that insipres my own deep sense of patriotism. Not everyone is as passionate about the Charter (or Canada) as I am, but the most important thing to know is the Charter is like our highest law, protecting that which is most important to Canadians.

The idea of having a referendum on the Charter of Rights is completely repugnant to me.

Objectively speaking, it would be extremely difficult to have a successful referendum. It might not be the right legal approach to amend the Charter. (Being a British Columbian, I am quite wary of referendums. When our provincial government came to power they held a very embarassing and useless referendum that we mostly prefer not to think about.) Even so, trying to amend the Charter is an extremely serious undertaking.

Canada rules.

EDIT: It was made in 1982.

[inked]

Canada rules.


Yeah, it seems to be a matter of rule making rather than law making, if you catch my drift.

[Nurvingiel]

Gah! I know you were making a joke but...

The Charter

It sets precedence for laws. That is the point of it, it doesn't mean we don't have laws.

[inked]

Let's see, you have an elected representative government, right?

The legislature makes the laws in an orderly fashion, right?

Then the Courts interpret the laws and judge them to be appropriate or not in relation to the Constititution (in which regard, is it written or not?) ?

Now, if I have the sequence right, please explain how the process is working properly when the tail is wagging the dog?

[katya]

Oh yeah, I forgot this thread existed! ...But it reminds me of something I saw on Book TV. They were talking about the biological differences between men and women, and how they affect, among other things, marriages. For example, how women are a lot happier to focus on the children and men want to focus on their career more, and that women's main job is the kids and the men are trying to take care of the wife. Also, some things about the balance of power between the two, and how it affects everyone's happiness. Should a woman get a job so the relationship is more balanced? Should the kid be raised equally by both? etc. It was really interesting, though I probably wasn't paying that close attention. Well? Anybody want to speak from experiece about it?