Canada Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Teri-K · Post by **Teri-K** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:08 pm

From our local news station:

"Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders."

In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

Should gay marriage be overturned in Massachusetts, does this mean the 4 nations that allow same-sex marriage could see asylum claims from U.S. citizens?

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:11 pm

Don't know. It's only a matter of time before rights are extended across the board--like interracial marriage and other "issues" that the majority will eventually realize aren't issues at all.

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:15 pm

My stance on the matter is this, and this will be all I'll say on it.....
I, though great fortune, have found a wonderful, caring, sensative woman who (heaven only knows why) loves me, and I adore her. We've been married some years and have just had our first child three months ago.
I could not ask for a greater joy...why should I endeavour to take or prohibit that opportunity in others?
Good for Canada.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:33 pm

"Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders."

Are you sure? It's the governor general who signs legislation, not the Chief Justice.

I know that the GG just had a bypass--maybe the chief justice is the next in line.

Teri-K · Post by **Teri-K** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:56 pm

s1m0n wrote:
"Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders."
Are you sure? It's the governor general who signs legislation, not the Chief Justice.

I know that the GG just had a bypass--maybe the chief justice is the next in line.

Directly from the ABC affiliate in Seattle: http://www.komotv.com/stories/38084.htm

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:58 pm

I cannot say that I am happy about it.

gonzo914 · Post by **gonzo914** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.

And I cannot say it's any of your business what gays do in Canada.

Or here, for that matter.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:49 pm

gonzo914 wrote:
Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.
And I cannot say it's any of your business what gays do in Canada.

Or here, for that matter.

Heh heh heh... yeah, it's none of my business unless I'm enlightened enough to be expressing glee for it.

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:21 am

heh, yeah Waldco, keep your opinions to yerself unless you agree with the happies! And to think you used to be so, well, reasonable!

buddhu · Post by **buddhu** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:19 am

Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.

Each entitled to his opinion.

That said, Walden, why are you not happy? Canada's some way from you, isn't it? And no one is trying to make you marry a member of your own gender...

Seriously, I'm curious.

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:41 am

buddhu wrote:
Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.
Each entitled to his opinion.

That said, Walden, why are you not happy?

So everyone's entitled to an opinion, but if that opinion doesn't agree with yours it has to be explained? What kind of freedom of speech is that? :roll:

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:55 am

GaryKelly wrote:
buddhu wrote:
Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.
Each entitled to his opinion.

That said, Walden, why are you not happy?
So everyone's entitled to an opinion, but if that opinion doesn't agree with yours it has to be explained? What kind of freedom of speech is that? :roll:

Not quite. Anyone who opposes has an opinion (which must be explained) while those who support it have facts (which stand on their own).

For the laaand of the mediocre
and the home of the Politically Correct!!!!

Did I explain that right or did I defer success?

brewerpaul · Post by **brewerpaul** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:21 am

gonzo914 wrote:
Walden wrote:I cannot say that I am happy about it.
And I cannot say it's any of your business what gays do in Canada.

Or here, for that matter.

But it IS Walden's business whether or not he's happy about it.
Lots of people are not happy about things, but would not do anything to deny other people those rights. Abortion is one that springs to mind.

For my part, I'm thrilled about the Canadian law. I echo another board member when I say that I can't imagine denying gay people the joys and rights (and yes, responsibilities) that I enjoy in marriage.

PJ · Post by PJ » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:46 am

Two stoned hockey players kissing while sitting on a mad cow.

That's Canada for you.

jbarter · Post by **jbarter** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:53 am

PJ wrote:Two stoned hockey players kissing while sitting on a mad cow.

That's Canada for you.

I'd stick with the maple leaf if I were you. It's easier to draw.