: Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein
2005-06-29, 08:01 PM
As I was saying ......
Mods, feel free to delete if you think the cooling off period hasn't been long enough.
2005-06-29, 08:08 PM
If Klein is so obsessed with this issue, he should have run for the leadership of a federal party. At least then Harper would be considered a moderate by the media.
2005-06-29, 08:15 PM
Klein would NEVER get approval in Ontario. You may as well let Manning run the party in that case.
2005-06-29, 08:34 PM
I think it is an emminently reasonable solution. It doesn't rule out gay marriage per se. Churches such as the United Church would be free to perform marriage ceremonies (and issue certificates of marriage), if that's what they believe. Depending on Church doctrine, they normally only want to 'marry' adherents to the faith. In the meantime, everyone is treated equal and can call their the results of their civil ceremony whatever they'd like. Perfect Canadian compromise.
2005-06-30, 12:43 AM
I noticed you talking about this on the now closed thread on ssm. I gues you know your stuff nanuuk, and as I think about it, so does Klein. Civil unions, I kind of like the sound of that.
2005-06-30, 01:19 AM
. Civil unions, I kind of like the sound of that.
Just dont call it marriage, right?
2005-06-30, 10:14 AM
Since provinces issue licenses you could call it just about anything, but marriage. As I said it works for me. Mainly because it diffuses a volatile situation, given the polarization on the issue. It also allows different jurisdictions (provinces) to manage marriage or civil union licensing according to the wishes of their electorate.
2005-06-30, 10:50 AM
This is a rational response where all citizens of the jurisdiction receive equal treatment from their government, so I'm OK with it.
2005-06-30, 11:10 AM
So making "civil unions" a synonym for marriage suddenly makes gay marriages okay? :confused:
2005-06-30, 11:30 AM
I don't think that is what Klein is proposing. Alberta already has legislation governing the conjoining of assets (amonst other things) in a same sex or common law relationship and for the orderly dissolution thereof should the relationship break down. The point is, a civil union license would grant two individuals the right to a ceremony to solemnize the relationship. Should the individuals be adherents to a Church that supports the consecration of the relationship as a marriage, then the couple would be married. If they don't follow through with a Church marriage, then they could call themselves whatever and you could call them whatever. I know I wouldn't be asking to see the Church's certificate of marriage for the sake of winning an argument. Whether two people of the same sex decide to cohabitate as life long partners is besides the point. Its going to happen. Now there might be some non Church adherents that will still want to call the licensing mechanism a marriage license. This argument will not satisfy 'extremists' on either side. As I said, a Canadian compromise.
2005-06-30, 11:36 AM
Well said Nanuuk.
It is this sort of rational thinking that would get him respect in the east if he were to replace Harper. Go Ralph.
2005-06-30, 04:22 PM
How is this rational?
I know many hetero couples who do not believe in any Church or God but still want to get "married." If they don't have the vows in a Church does that mean they are not married?
Additionally, what about couples with different religions. It is not uncommon for a church to deny marrying people because the other does not share their beliefs. In this regard, the couple may believe in God but choose to have a marriage outside of the Church so they don't step on anyones toes.
It is a ridiculous compromise and if this is what it has come down to than phooey. Who knows exactly where marriage started but it certainly is run by the government now and the Church has no place telling anybody whether their "marriage" is legal or not.
This is not an extremeist viewpoint. It is a viewpoint from the center.
How is this rational?
This is not an extremeist viewpoint. It is a viewpoint from the center.
It gets the state and the church as far out of it as possible. always a good idea.
I am also a center left, mostly.
2005-06-30, 05:31 PM
In some regards, this whole debate comes down to 'What's in a name/label?' Some people say that marriage is between a man/woman. Others say if you don't call same sex relationships 'marriage' then you are discriminating against gays. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, all we are arguing over is the definition of words.
Let's say that some auto lobby (like the CAW) pushed for the government to call trucks 'cars' because 'cars' under the law received some sort of advantage (I don't know, say better insurance rates). So now the truck lobby is pushing the government to change the definition of a 'car' to include trucks. Now the car people object, because they say a car is not a truck, but the truck people say they don't want to be disadvantaged.
So now the argument becomes, do you call a truck a car so that truck owners are not discriminated against even though everyone knows a truck is not a car. But even if you call a truck a car, does it really impact you at all, even if you are a car owner.
I believe marriage is between a man and woman. I don't think 'marriage' should include same sex marriage. BUT, if people want to call their relationship a 'marriage' and it doesn't impact me at all and they feel like they are being treated more fairly, then its ok with me. I'm willing to call a truck a car if it makes helps some people be happy. However, there are going to be those who are not or unwilling to be flexible in this matter. They say 'Call it what it is and don't call it something its not'. And hence, the debate continues.
[BTW, if you think my truck/car analogy is too off-base, this actually has happened. I remember an article about some guy who modified his Porsche 944 with a rear flat bed in order to get preferable insurance premiums because he could then call his car a 'truck'. I have also heard that Porsches come with 4 seats because in Germany/Europe, there is preferable treatment if you deal in 4 seat vehicles rather than 2 seats.]
2005-06-30, 07:58 PM
Proteosome, couples that don't get married in a Church wouldn't have a marriage certificate, but they would have a civil union license. Simple as that. And no it won't please everybody, but it is an attempt to find middle ground. Failing that, I believe they will be an anti-gay backlash and this issue will be argued about for years to come. To the detriment of other public policy.
I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that the Feds redefining marriage was a short sighted decision that they felt complied with the Supreme Court decision. To govern from the centre, compromises need to be made to avoid alienating large segments of the population. The Liberals have managed to do that (alienate people that is). Ralph's potential solution is an attempt to govern from the centre.
2005-07-01, 01:35 AM
I just read something interesting on this matter. It seems the original wording in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not include sexual orientation in its list of protected individuals or groups. This Charter was not voted on by Canadians and the wording of sexual orientation was not added until the 90's, can you guess who did it? Why, the Supremes of course. Activist judges not only reinterpreting laws but making their own additions. (Has anyone heard differently? Please enlighten us, I really hope this report I read is wrong)
In light of this, I think Klein's response is proper but I can't help but wonder how long it will take the Supremes to react if Klein goes ahead with civil unions.
I don't think this soultion will work. There are already a few churches that marry homosexuals and what would stop the homosexual community to create a new religion, where God said the homosexuals are a good thing and should have the same rights. After all, there are so many different religions, what's so hard inventing a new one?
2005-07-01, 07:58 AM
>>> couples that don't get married in a Church wouldn't have a marriage certificate, but they would have a civil union license<<<
we could not find a minister to marry us 25 yrs ago , for a couple of reasons 1) we were already living together (sin) 2) we had a baby together already, (really big sin )
So the ceromony was performed at the city hall "civil" union license, (mostly for the sake of family who are stuck on labels and don't want to rock the boat of "tradition"
In my opinion we were "married" the moment we decided to live together and plan our family together. it is 25 yrs later and we are still married,
There are some who refuse to believe that we are married because if the church deny's you, then God deny's you
there are some who say , you can find a minister now to "bless" your marriage (guess that means wink an eye or something)*
I believe marriage is defined by the couple, a consious choice to cohabitate regardless of the church and her various conflicting, ever changing doctrines, or the governments need to please the the tax paying voter , ......
And that is my thoughts on this ongoing issue
2005-07-01, 10:20 AM
In the Old Testament times, to be married was to simply go in the other persons tent and sleet together. Much simpler...