Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: KyoZero

Slavery was never OK (even at the founding they attempted to get rid of it but money talks), but that doesn't invalidate a states right to sovereignty on other issues. Are LGBT people routinely whipped and forced to work for free? No? Ok, then stop comparing the two as though it is a valid comparison, their similarities end at being a minority group.

There is a document I pull out every now and then to read and it is the speech then Prime Minister Paul Martin gave to the House of Commons in February of 2005.

First he talks about the Charter which is the equivalent to the Constitution and have similar ideals.

... The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority. We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact...

... some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians...

... The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

What is truly incredible about the breathtakingly beautiful and passionate speech by the Prime Minister is that only 4 years prior, Paul Martin was one of the politicians that helped to vote the Civil Marriage Act down.

... Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. We've heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions - adopting a "separate but equal" approach - would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms...

Even though we are separate countries the lines of demarcation between us is blurry. I hope that some of you who are swearing that judgement day cometh will just look North and see that the world did not change and the ground did not shake. Life went on normal. Canada didn't become Satan's pit of sin. We have not collapsed. See us as a litmus test and maybe you will sleep easier tonight.

ETA - Here is Prime Minister Paul Martin's full address to the House of Commons if anyone is interested in reading it.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Don't you think allowing everyone (including gays) to marry would be for the betterment of society? Marriage usually brings stability, so would you rather gays be more or less unstable?

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
There is a document I pull out every now and then to read and it is the speech then Prime Minister Paul Martin gave to the House of Commons in February of 2005.

First he talks about the Charter which is the equivalent to the Constitution and have similar ideals.

... The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority. We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact...

... some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians...

... The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

What is truly incredible about the breathtakingly beautiful and passionate speech by the Prime Minister is that only 4 years prior, Paul Martin was one of the politicians that helped to vote the Civil Marriage Act down.

... Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. We've heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions - adopting a "separate but equal" approach - would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms...

Even though we are separate countries the lines of demarcation between us is blurry. I hope that some of you who are swearing that judgement day cometh will just look North and see that the world did not change and the ground did not shake. Life went on normal. Canada didn't become Satan's pit of sin. We have not collapses. See us as a litmus test and maybe you will sleep easier tonight.

When did this change in canada? 2005, barely a decade ago right? Yeah, get back to me in 50-80 years.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Dfairlite

Don't you think allowing everyone (including gays) to marry would be for the betterment of society? Marriage usually brings stability, so would you rather gays be more or less unstable?

I don't give two ####'s about gays, the question is will society be more or less stable? Less is the answer. Take a look at San Fransisco. Take a look at the studies done on children raised by homosexuals. But unfortunately you don't have to do that, you can just wait 50 years and see the destruction.

ETA: I hope I'm wrong. I have nothing against gays, they're already missing out on one of the best parts of life, I do have everything against promoting it as an equal to heterosexual marriage.

If I give someone a certificate that says they are a rocket scientist, and a ring that says rocket scientist, and let him or her walk around the science center with the scientists, does that then make him or her a scientist? No.

Marriage is the same way. marriage is a male-female institution. A man comes into union with a woman through sex and from this union another human being is conceived and born into the world.

Homosexuals, at best can play with one another, or as some would say, have some sexual contact with each other. But it's no more than that. Buddies, if you will. But it can never be a marriage because marriage, even if the homosexuals are given a nice piece of paper, a ring, and allowed to present it to society. To most of society, they will just be pretenders.

In a way I feel sorry for the homosexuals because they are doing everything they can to justify and legitimize their cravings for the same sex. It's important for them to have society and the billions of heterosexuals accept their behavior as some normal way of life, but it will never be. Being bold they invade every part of society today, forcing those who really tolerate them to allow them to do so without restraint.

Eventually there will come a tipping point where society will right itself again and sexual behaviors good and bad will be left to the darkened bedroom of privacy where it truly belongs.

This is why the Supreme Court decision will cause a backlash for the homosexuals who push their desires, cravings, and feelings into the faces of everyone for acceptance of the same.

I'm just going to leave this here.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Because marriage is the cornerstone of society.

What the hell does that mean? "the cornerstone of society"?

It is an important institution and should be implemented for the betterment of society,

And why do you think it's not being implemented for the betterment of society? Same-sex marriages are just as stable and as rocky as opposite-sex marriages are. They don't change ANYTHING about traditional marriages. They will still survive. Mine is doing great.

By allowing the states to do this themselves you get the best of the best.

Those who are denied their rights are not getting the best of the best. Sorry.

You get states that allow everything, states that are restrictive, etc. Then you can study other states social outcomes and decide which way to go.

It's been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years. They're doing all right... Every country and every state that has legalized marriage equality is doing just fine. I think we already have seen the "social outcomes".

You asked for someone to show a flaw in your argument. I did so here, www.abovetopsecret.com..., yet you continue to ignore it...

a reply to: Fromabove

So you are for fertility tests prior to marriage for heterosexual couples? If eggs are not viable, the woman should be barred from marriage? Same goes for men too, right? Slow and low sperm counts disqualifies them from attaining a license?

ETA - What about heterosexual couples that are fertile but have decided prior to marriage that they do not want children? They're not allowed to get married then, right? Women who give birth after 40 are at a higher risk of miscarriage and complications during birth so should we stop them from getting married to?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Your post is based on ignorance. A society is only as stable as its citizens. The more stable the citizens are, the more stable the society will be.

Not all gays are interested in being married. The ones that are interested, are usually couples who have been together many years.

I have seen studies done on children raised by homosexuals.

journalistsresource.org...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I do have everything against promoting it as an equal to heterosexual marriage.

WHY, though? If you don't have anything against gays, as you say, and you don't have ANY proof that gays who marry are any less stable than straight people who marry, what's wrong with it? Why is it not equal?

Your argument is falling apart and don't think anyone is missing the fact that you refuse to respond to my earlier post showing the fallacy of your argument:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Because of the reasons for the institution of marriage, there is no offense for a man and woman to be married. They can actually unite as a male and female. Homosexuals can only play, crave, and have sexual contact without the purpose of procreation. That can never be a marriage.

It's the same as this. I can make a contract with another man that says I will provide such and such and he provides such and such in material and food, and the contract allows for a shared residence and food and health benefits. And the contract will state that I will not be the friend of any other man or woman, that all my attention will go to that man. All of it without sexual intercourse.

It will be considered by any court as a binding contract, enforceable by law. But it can never be a marriage, even if we play or have sexual contact.

a reply to: Fromabove

Another post based in ignorance.

Being a scientist requires specific knowledge. Getting a marriage license just requires citizenship and a legal age.

Not all marriages end up with procreation - including heterosexual marriages.

Polls show the majority of the population supports same-sex marriage.

Homosexuals don't care about you "accepting" them. They want equal protection under the laws - the same protection you and all other citizens have.

Eventually there will come a time where no one even thinks twice about two gays getting married. After your kind is dead and gone, the next generation will study history and be amazed at all the fuss.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
I'm just going to leave this here.

Small sample bias. Some children rise up out of massive poverty, destructive, violent ghetto's to be successful amazing people. They're the exception, not the rule.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I think about homosexuals trying to pass themselves off as a couple. They make out in the park and I nearly hurl right there on the spot. To be honest, the reaction I have is quite revolting. Homosexuals wanting to imitate and pretend to be married is also insulting to those who actually enjoy a marriage relationship as a man an woman. It's like you're spitting on us, but you can't see that.

That some married couples can't or won't have children does not take away from the purpose of marriage, as they are still a man and woman, two components that create the marriage.

For me, what the Supreme Court did was to spit on the institution of marriage, and by that, every married heterosexual couple.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Could a man not marry a woman, regardless of their sexuality. Of course they could. That satisfies equal protection.

And you realize that no matter how you frame that "argument", a gay man marrying a woman is not fundamentally equal to a straight man marrying a woman. The relationship is fundamentally not the same as an adult choosing to marry someone with whom they wish to spend their lives, most times out of love and the desire to "cleave". That argument is lame. Heterosexuals had the right to choose a their partner, form a bond and marry. Homosexuals were being denied that right.

The supreme court changed the definition of marriage, the essence of the relationship. They didn't establish equality, because it already existed.

What definition of marriage? There are many. If you consider that the word marriage simply means "an intimate or close union", then the only people who have "changed the definition" are those who put all the legal restrictions on this word in the first place, including those who have thought they "owned" the word. There is no ONE definition of marriage.

NO ONE defines my marriage except for my husband and I. Not the government, not the Supreme Court, not religion, and not you. It's no one else's place or privilege to define my marriage. The Supreme Court did not "change the essence" of ANYONE'S relationship. That's crazy talk. My relationship does not fit into a mold. ALL relationships are different and don't conform to an "essence".

If I, as a heterosexual woman, can choose who I have this "intimate or close union" with, then homosexuals should have that same right.

And they do. I know you know that, I just like saying it.

Didn't see this post, not ignoring it. it's a lazy argument and easily dismantled. Just like the tax credits everyone here has ignored, this doesn't matter, the state has a right to incentivize what it views as productive behaviors, such as the green tax credits. I wanted that truck. I desired it. I love it. Why don't I get a damn tax credit? Am I being denied my fundamental rights to be treated like other car buyers who go out and buy a prius? Of course not. It was my decision based on my desires. It is not the state's fault that I don't want a prius, it's my own preference.

If I, as a heterosexual woman, can choose who I have this "intimate or close union" with, then homosexuals should have that same right.

I, as a heterosexual man cannot choose to have this close union with a man. Just the same.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Because gay marriage will destroy society. Gay people will not, but promoting a gay union as being the same as a heterosexual union will.

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

Schlax said 28 percent of students at Asawa SOTA identify as LGBT or questioning, more than at any other public high school in San Francisco, according to district officials.

Now let me state my belief. I believe about 1-2% of the population is born homosexual. So tell me how the hell 28% of these high school students identify as such, other than through choice? These are high school kids, they didn't move there because they're homosexuals, they live with their parents. But being surrounded by that culture has confused them. It was also found in a study (I'll have to look for the link if you'd like it) that children raised by homosexuals were something like 10x more likely to try out homosexuality.

a reply to: Fromabove

Do you need the queer version of birds and the bees? The thing that you and most people gloss over is the love involved. When I get married it isn't going to be for a contract about shelter, food, support. It is going to be because I found someone that I love so deeply I will not be able to live without them. They will be the first person I think of in the morning, my last thought before falling asleep.

originally posted by: Dfairlite


I don't give two ####'s about gays

You clearly do.

originally posted by: Dfairlite the question is will society be more or less stable? Less is the answer. Take a look at San Fransisco. Take a look at the studies done on children raised by homosexuals.

Could you post a link to that for me please? I think the only reason society would be less stable would be due to intolerance.

originally posted by: DfairliteBut unfortunately you don't have to do that, you can just wait 50 years and see the destruction.

Destruction? Wow, hyperbole much? ....and all because of the Gays? Wow!!!

originally posted by: DfairliteETA: I hope I'm wrong. I have nothing against gays, they're already missing out on one of the best parts of life,

You clearly do.

originally posted by: Dfairlite I do have everything against promoting it as an equal to heterosexual marriage.

Why? It is equal to heterosexual marriage, which is a good thing.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
I'm just going to leave this here.

Small sample bias. Some children rise up out of massive poverty, destructive, violent ghetto's to be successful amazing people. They're the exception, not the rule.

Well then why don't you provide your large unbiased sample study. Or is it anecdotal?