I believe that gay marriage servers little purpose than to have complete equity. Most gay people do not believe in religious marriage, which is what this decision is about. They can already get civil unions in some states, which is easier to argue, but no, they want to go for all out marriage.
Canada had several years of space between when civil (i.e. legal or common low) marriage and the religious marriage came through. Why do we wish to have marriage from institutions that have sought to marginilaze homosexuals for years. centuries even.
However, I do think that there is a lot of symbolism in this, it's a huge milestone. The US Supreme court only ruled criminal sodomy (anal sex, homosexual sex acts,) illegal in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. It's got some people a break, and did good things, and showed progress. But Canada did that in the 70's.
marriage for everyone is about not denying people certain opportunities based on their sexual orientation. In that way it's a Canadaian Charter right - the government does not have the right to deny you things based on sex, race, religion, etc. In denying marriage to same-sex couples, they are also denied a lot of the legal rights that opposite-sex couples get - insurance, hospital visits, etc etc.
on the other hand, the argument from religious groups is that "legalising" gay marriage (if you're looking at it from a human rights point of view, it's already legal, like giving women the right to vote - something they already have innately but which is being denied) is that it forces religious groups to do things they don't want to do. You can't do that either - the government does not have the right to force religious groups to act a certain way if it goes against their religion. However, the idea is that religious groups won't be forced to do anything. Plenty of other churches are willing to perform gay and lesbian marriages anyway.
it is just a matter of time before people will openly accept gay marriage. in ontario, at least, marriage is now defined as "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." and so really is just a union between two people. it's just a form of discrimination, and sooner or later it will be accepted. i'm sure back in the day, (i don't know exactly when), white people would not have imagined that they would have equal rights with african americans.. or men would have equal rights with women... so i think it's just a matter of time.
Comments 6
Canada had several years of space between when civil (i.e. legal or common low) marriage and the religious marriage came through. Why do we wish to have marriage from institutions that have sought to marginilaze homosexuals for years. centuries even.
However, I do think that there is a lot of symbolism in this, it's a huge milestone. The US Supreme court only ruled criminal sodomy (anal sex, homosexual sex acts,) illegal in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. It's got some people a break, and did good things, and showed progress. But Canada did that in the 70's.
Reply
on the other hand, the argument from religious groups is that "legalising" gay marriage (if you're looking at it from a human rights point of view, it's already legal, like giving women the right to vote - something they already have innately but which is being denied) is that it forces religious groups to do things they don't want to do. You can't do that either - the government does not have the right to force religious groups to act a certain way if it goes against their religion.
However, the idea is that religious groups won't be forced to do anything. Plenty of other churches are willing to perform gay and lesbian marriages anyway.
Reply
Reply
Reply
fags, pft, down with fags
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment