Acceptance, Equality & Justice – Well it Depends

timec

Banned
Jul 7, 2004
189
0
0
Saturday, November 6, 2004

Saskatchewan court legalizes gay marriage - Provincial authorities have the power to marry same-sex couples with or without permission from the courts or the federal government, a judge declared yesterday as she issued a decision legalizing gay marriage in Saskatchewan.

==============================

Thursday, November 4, 2004

AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas Board of Education approved new health textbooks for the state's high school and middle school students Friday after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The decision involves two of the biggest textbook publishers and represents another example of Texas exerting its market clout as the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks. Officials say the decision could affect hundreds of thousands of books in Texas alone.

On Thursday, a board member charged that proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like ``married partners'' instead of ``husband and wife.''

After hearing the debate Thursday, one publisher, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, agreed to include a definition of marriage as a ``lifelong union between a husband and a wife.'' The other publisher, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, changed phrases such as ``when two people marry'' and ``partners'' to ``when a man and a woman marry'' and ``husbands and wives.''

Board member Terri Leo, a Republican, said she was pleased with the publishers' changes. She had led the effort to get the publishers to change the texts, objecting to what she called ``asexual stealth phrases'' such as ``individuals who marry.''

``Marriage has been defined in Texas, so it should also be defined in our health textbooks that we use as marriage between a man and a woman,'' Leo said.
 

timec

Banned
Jul 7, 2004
189
0
0
Mike Hawk said:
Your point????
Within Canada, we see the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage in Ontario, B.C., Quebec, the Yukon, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and now Saskatchewan – contrasted with the Bush agenda towards US constitutional reform to ban same-sex marriage & the recent US state level election results where US voters solidly backed proposals to ban same-sex marriage in the 11 states where the issue was on the ballot.

As for the Texas example – is the editing/reprinting of text books to exclude generic references such as “when two people marry'', “married partners” & “individuals who marry”, any different from burning those books?

 

timec

Banned
Jul 7, 2004
189
0
0
But not in Alberta you say … the much ballyhooed Alberta advantage - but not for all?

The position of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and the Alberta Conservative government is to attempt to block same-sex marriages in Alberta should a court case require it or pending federal legislation pass it nationwide.

On March 16, 2000, the provincial government passed Bill 202, which amended the provincial Marriage Act to include an opposite-sex only definition of marriage. The Bill also included in the Act the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' Notwithstanding Clause. This insulates the Marriage Act from any legal challenge based on violation of Charter rights, including the section 15 equality guarantees.

On October 21, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada wrapped up two days of hearings into the Government of Canada’s plan to rewrite the definition of marriage. The Court heard contention from the Alberta government that Ottawa can't use the Constitution to amend the opposite-sex definition of marriage. The lawyers representing the province of Alberta stated that marriage is a social institution arguing that "Law didn't create marriage, but instead attached legal consequences to marriage". Lawyers for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops stated procreation is at the core of marriage, arguing that only opposite-sex couples can serve the state's interest in conceiving future generations, and that "The state's interest is the sexual relationship, because it produces the children."
 

BlueBells

New member
May 22, 2004
86
1
0
49
Victoria
If marriage is about children not companionship then no marriage without children should be allowed. No "golden age" weddings. Check both particpants for fertility before issuing licences and if they don't procreate within 2 yrs the marriage is null and fine 'em both for failing to uphold the states interest.


Bah!


Love is hard enough to find without placing limits on it.
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
75
Washington State
IMO - marriage is a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony. In the US we have separation of church and state (although very often used to suppress religion).

There should be no civil laws that either confer or deny benefits to anyone based on their martial status.

Governments should sanction civil unions and the states or provinces can decide what civil unions they will recognize and confer benefits to. If the state wants to recognize a civil union between two or more people regardless of their sex or relationship go for it.

But do not call it marriage. In fact the state should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether and leave that up to the churches to decide.

Have a civil union with your mother if you want to, I do not care.
 

rickoshadows

Just another member!
May 11, 2002
902
0
16
66
Vancouver Island
LD, I would agree with you if that were possible, but the word marriage and all the legal rights and priveleges that entails are written in so many rules, regulations and customs, that to redefine it as a civil union would be less than equal. One of the reasons, the supreme court that a union of two persons must be recognized as a marriage.

If we could turn back time, and not permit religous beliefs to infiltrate out laws, we would have much less grief today. Ober the years there have been many laws, statutes and regulations based on the edicts of imaginary beings, many of which are or have been abolished like the prohibition on Sunday shopping etc.

In Canada, there is no intention to force churches to perform gay marriages (although some idiots would push the envelope by taking a church to court). But there still is moral outrage, even though the outraged don't see anything wrong with there desire to impose there beliefs on others.

We have one thing in common, we both live in countries where too many people's definition of freedom only extends to activities they approve of.

rickoshadows
 

luckydog71

Active member
Oct 26, 2003
1,117
0
36
75
Washington State
Agreed. Freedom is a two edge sword.

I should expect to be as free to do what I what as I am willing to let others be free to do what they want.

Someone posted on a differnt thread a story about some Americans who were in Ottawa and were trying to burn the Canadian flag. They were having problems lighting the flag, so an RCMP came over and showed them how to do it.
 

rickoshadows

Just another member!
May 11, 2002
902
0
16
66
Vancouver Island
luckydog71 said:
Someone posted on a differnt thread a story about some Americans who were in Ottawa and were trying to burn the Canadian flag. They were having problems lighting the flag, so an RCMP came over and showed them how to do it.
Yeah, its the politeness thing, but having once burned down the Whitehouse, I guess we're considered something of an expert.

rickoshadows
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts