Canada Day!

[backguy]

For the third time in seven years, I'm in the States while Canada Day celebrations are going on north of the 49th parallel. I'm disappointed to not be up there, but my sister is visiting, so that's nice, at least. (And I'll get to see fireworks on Tuesday night

Comments

[zedinbed]

Revoking the right to same sex marriage falls squarely under the category of anti-civil rights. The message the Conservatives are sending to the gay community is that they are second rate citizens who should never have the right to call someone of the same sex their husband or wife but rather be relegated to calling their soulmate a "partner", that meaningless term that doesn't take into account the depth or power of the couple's feelings for each other. Of course, this doesn't even account for all the legal issues concerned with not being given the equal right to marriage for gays and lesbians.

As for pro-war, the fact that the minister of defence states that Canadian forces should not only be peacekeepers but peacemakers as well and then follows that by billions of dollars of spending on the defence doesn't make me feel any safer or better. Notice how America considers its forces in Iraq peacemakers as well. And its no surprise that the Conservatives favoured going to war against Iraq back when the United States launched their war. Look where it took them and look how much better off we were in NOT listening to the Conservatives and their war-mongering.

[theenforcer]

If the feelings exist, what does the name matter?

[zedinbed]

I can use the same argument against revoking the law now that its been put in place. If homosexuality is OK, then why revoke same sex marriage, considering a Canadian marriage is a secular idea, not a religious one.

[theenforcer]

You are (indirectly) asking me why the government cares what it's called, which is fair to a certain degree, but it's answering my question with a question. What do you or anyone else care if gay couples are called 'partners', when the connection is what really matters? Or, put another way, what is so powerful about the word 'marriage' that applying it to a bond between two people somehow suddenly makes it more special?

Feel free not to answer; I have no intention of hijacking Rodney's journal for such a discussion. I just found it interesting that the rose of Matrimony, by some other name, doesn't seem to smell as sweet to you.

[infohigh]

*shrug* I can definitely see it being frustrating. A constant reminder that you're considered different and unaccepted in the country.

That being said, I don't see what the heck the government has to do with marriage, anyway. It's a legal contract that allows certain abilities, like being able to easily see each other in the hospital, and some tax differences, etc.. I'm not really sure. But I wish that this legal footwork didn't go under the name of something I'd always considered a religious commitment / the celebration thereof. It just confuses everything; messing with one (formerly dominating) culture's tradition, trying to umbrella the whole diverse, multicultural nation. I don't think the gov't should recognize marriage, but whatever family-scale social trends it is convenient for the gov't to recognize when and where they become apparent in our society.

In response to your question, the name is exactly what matters; it was all a politicization. Marriage should be a cultural phenomenon, not a legal one.

[theenforcer]

Legal contracts almost always involve the government, implicitly or otherwise. Contracts that affect taxes are a sure thing.

That said, I still don't see how the name matters in and of itself, government or not. Call it marriage, call it partners, call it friends who live together; what really matters at the end of the day is the connection below the words. Give me that, and you can call it whatever you want.

[infohigh]

Sure. But has the role of our peace-whatevers changed? Are we in Iraq, or looking towards Iran? I don't see us jumping on board with anything like that.. but I might be wrong.

Has the gov't seriously considered changing any of the same-sex marriage stuff back? It would be really stupid (and political suicide) at this point. I recall there was an election promise to put to vote whether or not the people in the House of Commons think they should discuss the issue again (or something like that?), but I'd be very surprised if many of them would actually vote in favour of it.

[zedinbed]

Without bombarding Rodney's LJ with secondary threads that he might not want, I would just like to finally clarify that the Conservative government plans on raising a vote in the House of Commons in September on revoking the Canadian right to same-sex marriage.