Canada has WMDs

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Canadian Leaders Agree to Propose Gay Marriage Law

Somebody set up US the bomb.

The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Last week, the province's highest court ruled that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

Once aides to Mr. Chrétien draft the necessary legislation, the House of Commons is expected to pass it into law in the next few months. Although leaders of the two conservative parties and some Liberals have expressed reservations, there is little organized opposition to such legislation, and public opinion polls show a solid majority in favor of the change.

The decision to redefine marriage in Canada to include unions between men and between women will immediately take effect in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Last week, the province's highest court ruled that current federal marriage laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

How are you Gentlemen!! All your freedom are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction.

Canadian marriage licenses have always been accepted in the United States, but now that the definition of marriage in the two countries appears likely to diverge, legal challenges to same-sex couples claiming rights and privileges deriving from their Canadian marriages seem certain to arise in at least some states.

Canada's new marriage policy comes at a time when the government is also pushing for legislation that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, another policy that diverges sharply from American federal practices.

Polling experts and social scientists note that conservative religious views are much less influential here than in the United States, with regular church attendance far lower and with fundamentalist Protestant groups attracting far less support.

You have no chance to survive make your time.

Canada's action follows in the steps of the Netherlands and Belgium, but it is likely to have a much larger impact on the United States. Only a few American same-sex couples have taken advantage of expanded marriage laws in the Netherlands because of its long residency requirement, and Belgium will only allow marriages of foreign couples from countries that already allow such unions. But Canada is nearby and has no such restrictions.

"What this presents for American couples is an opportunity to easily enter into a legal marriage and come back to the United States with a powerful tool to break down the remaining discrimination here," said Lavi Soloway, a Canadian-born lawyer and founder of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force in New York.

Ha Ha Ha Ha . . . .

[pakman]

Hmmm....I sense uber thread if the right people get involved....

[channel1]

Watch it, yank, or we'll ship off some SARS on you. Or maybe a flock of West Nile-infected crows.

All those Zebra mussels were just a warning.

And, if you don't look out, we'll use our Ultimate Weapon: a stampede of Mad Cows.

So, chill out, smoke a joint, don't worry, be happy! All we're doing with the revised marriage legislation is getting Niagara Falls back to being the honeymoon capitol of the world. :)

Git along, l'il Prairie Doggie...

-rcv-

[TriggerHappy]

We're so getting annexed ...

[Occhidiangela]

So, who throws the garter, who gets the garter slipped up their leg? I mean, blast it, some one needs to codify that so that folks in the wedding party don't get confused at the reception?

And, will there be maids of honor, or just a bunch of drag queens standing about?

Details, details, this will play havoc with those who have to plan weddings. Social chaos will ensue!

Or, put another way, it is quite possibly a sign the the Apoclaypse is not far off.

[ShadowHM]

At the only gay wedding I have ever attended, most everyone wore a suit. B) Conservative type suits....the basic black tuxedo. Well, except for me. :P

I was the escort of a lesbian friend who felt that she had to bring a date, so she wore the tuxedo and I dressed in the frilliest feminine thing I could find.

At the time this union was not a legally sanctioned one, but the two men getting married still felt strongly enough about their attachment to one another that they held a ceremony with following party anyway.

Most weddings nowadays are somewhat light on the 'traditional' accoutrement's anyway, what with the wildly varying backgrounds of the participants. I guess the gays who marry now will have to make up their own traditions, eh?

Oh, and I thought the Apocalypse was already looming over us. ;) I can't imagine this event speeding its arrival. :P

[Jeunemaitre]

I guess the gays who marry now will have to make up their own traditions, eh?

A friend of a friend of a friend and her partner are currently planning a wedding. Shadow's subject line made me think of it because the two of them attended one of those "wedding fairs" (those vast conglomerations of dress merchants, reception hall representatives and reps for everything from cakes to wedding night attire). Repeatedly as they went from merchant to merchant the reps would ask something along the line of "So, who's the one getting married?" in their most friendly voice. When met with the response of "Well, we are." the rep's tone would become a little confused and unsure and they'd generally come out with either "How nice..." or "... And why not?" [Trust me, it's funnier done in person so you can get the tone of voice.]

A side note, in terms of new traditions, I think they were both planning on wearing white dresses.

[DeeBye]

All we're doing with the revised marriage legislation is getting Niagara Falls back to being the honeymoon capitol of the world. :)

I was married in Niagara Falls. It was a suitably cheesy ceremony, but our arranged reception was pretty damned great. The food, entertainment, and lodgings were decent. Actually, I'll upgrade the food ranking to "outstanding!".

Niagara Falls looks like ass from the US side, I must say. Clean it up, yanks! Too...many...rocks...and...junk...

[TaMeOlta]

I'm hoping that this has no effect on the cost and exportation of Canadian bacon - which really tastes good on pizza ya' kno ! ;)

[dahak_i]

I agree.

It's about time America opened up marriage to gays. I've always thought it should be acceptable, based on, if nothing else, the fact that we're supposed to have seperation of church and state. Our rules of marriage are basically Christian principles, and other religions allow for other unions. There is no reason not to embrace any of them.

As for the pot, there is similar legislation in Nevada, I believe. I don't know the specifics, but the basic point was to bring up, and vote on, decriminalization of small amounts of "green and brown vegetation" ;-) in a little less than 4 years. If it passes then, I think it goes directly into effect.

[Chaerophon]

Hehe, the point of contention in Canada is the fact that the bill calls for the decriminalization of possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. That's a lot of pot :)

[Sickywicky]

I don't mind gay marriage (I do avoid Amsterdam during gaygames but that's because I don't like to be looked at by men in a scary way :huh: ) as for pot/weed alcohol is more damaging if you look at the facts. Actually pot/weed prevent parkinson,enherital blindnesses,alzheimer,etc..

I want to ask this : What the HELL is wrong with weed/pot ??? It doesn't make you aggressive and destructive (alcohol does sometimes),an OD on THC is impossible (alcohol poisoning anyone ?).

My two eurocents... :)

[pakman]

The thing that is wrong with marijuana is the people that use it. Usually they have an aggressive attitude and marijuana only magnifies that aggression in them. The same with alcohol. Different people react differently to different drugs. Some people could be sleepy drunks, funny drunks, or a mad drunk. Marijuana has more negative effects on the lungs than cigarettes when smoked unfiltered. Marijuana does not prevent diseases like those mentioned, it only helps in easing the pain of the afflicted.

My two American cents...

[Sickywicky]

Actually pot/weed prevent parkinson,enherital blindnesses,alzheimer,etc.. (100% true I read this in the paper and see it on the news frequently researches/reports).

Usually they have an aggressive attitude and marijuana only magnifies that aggression in them.

I go to dutch coffeeshops often, never saw an aggressive stoner (I've been smoking for 3 years), people with aggressive tendencies, suddenly are very nice people.

Marijuana has more negative effects on the lungs than cigarettes when smoked unfiltered.

Since one gets stoned of pot/weed, one smokes less thus "healthier" than smoking cigarettes too.

[channel1]

I'm hoping that this has no effect on the cost and exportation of Canadian bacon - which really tastes good on pizza ya' kno !  ;)

It is a different issue, our exporting of a material of highly addictive nature.

Back bacon (aka "Canadian" bacon) has proven benefits for a variety of medical conditions, such as anorexia.

Back bacon has been used by many, including prominent politicians. I find it hard to believe the claims that "I experimented with Canadian bacon when I was young. I chewed, but did not swallow!"

Back bacon does not necessarily lead to abuse of other substances. I know many people who use back bacon, and have never gone on to putting gravy on french fries, or the ultimate addiction, poutine.

It is pointless to try to prohibit the personal use of back bacon. All attempts at training dogs to sniff out hidden caches of back bacon have resulted in failure, since the dogs tend to eat the evidence.

Granted, eating a back bacon sandwich can impair one's ability to drive. As a result, back bacon should not be sold at drive-thru restaurants.

Back bacon should not be given to children, at least until they are old enough to have teeth.

Closing the borders in an attempt to prevent the flow of back bacon into the USofA is pointless, since there are already many producers of back bacon in it's raw form right in the USofA.

-rcv-

[pakman]

mmmmmmmm.......vegemite!

[Feryar]

I think the only reason alcohol is not banned just like pot/weed/marijuana/whatever is that it has been around for so long. If smoking a blunt was the favorite past-time in Europe in the 1500s and alcohol appeared on the "market" 40 years ago, I'm pretty sure it would be the other way around.
Noone has been able to prove that one is more damaging than the other. I think both or none should be made illegal. (Well actually I think none should be made illegal :))

My point is that the only reason these two substances are treated different is that alcohol has been around for so long and has become so much a part of our "culture" that it would be impossible to make it illegal. Pot has not. That's the difference.

Not that I really care, I've tried smoking it on several occasions and still prefer my beer. I just think that people should be able to choose which substance they want to alter their behaviour :)


Chemical substances like speed, crack, ecstacy and so on should be banned from the planet, though, and anyone caught making or selling it should be tied to a tree and have Boris Becker serve golf-balls at them.

[channel1]

Hehe, the point of contention in Canada is the fact that the bill calls for the decriminalization of possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.  That's a lot of pot :)

30 grams is slightly over an ounce, which is a reasonable amount for personal use.

Part of the proposed legislation that the USofA administration ignores is the increased penalties for possession of larger quantities, i.e. with intent to traffic. Also, possession near schools (presumably with intent to sell to kids) will have much tougher penalties.

The group that maintains the strongest lobby against easing restrictions on pot is the pharmaceutical companies. It's no wonder. The anti-nausea medications that are typically prescribed for people with AIDS and undergoing cancer therapy cost thousands of dollars a year. It would be harmful to their financial bottom line, if an alternative drug was used that could be grown easily in a garden, or even as a house plant.

Of course, there is a problem with pot as a recreational substance. Strangely enough, though, the people I know who are regular users are also successful businessmen, and upper managers. That's probably just because of my age (48), I really don't know any kids who have lost themselves to staying stoned all the time. I do know some who waste their lives with alcohol, and I know a LOT who waste their lives zoned out gambling, watching TV or playing games. That's a cultural/social problem, and it can't be dealt with by simply one habitual activity.

-rcv-

[Occhidiangela]

Canada and the rest of Europe re instated the Death Penalty, by hanging, for shoplifting. Hanging a thief for stealing is a very old legal tradition that in no way evokes religious law, and indeed, it exceeds an 'eye for an eye.' What a nice secular law, bring it back! And soon!

Any other pointless remarks you want to make in this regard?

It's about time America opened up marriage to gays. I've always thought it should be acceptable, based on, if nothing else, the fact that we're supposed to have seperation of church and state. Our rules of marriage are basically Christian principles, and other religions allow for other unions. There is no reason not to embrace any of them.

Your 'separation' of Church state sound byte, as seductive as it is, completely ignores the fact that a great deal of 'common law' and custom derives from social customs that were the result of embedding secular/religious law for most of recorded history.

About time? Bull#$%&. How about this: "It will probably change in time.

New Hampshire is already working in that direction. (Hawaii had a move in that direction as well a few years back.) Each state in the US has the right to adopt and put to vote such laws. Funnily enough, it is not ay present a federal issue. The citizens in each state do indeed have a voice. Perhaps, in time, the Supreme Court will be presented with a case that shows how this issue devolves into a Constitutional issue.

A question I will pose to you is:

Why should America change its laws just because someone else does? Hell, why don't we change our laws regarding how women are allowed to dress? I mean, the folks in Saudi Arabia and Iran have strict rules against wearing short shorts and midriff tops in public, why don't we get with it, eh?

[dahak_i]

What any given country does may not have a specific effect on the United States. However, with the points made in the original post about Canada's proximity to the US and the marriage laws of each, it becomes a different story.

The new option for gays to get married in Canada and then live in the US with relative ease cannot be ignored. Legislation will most likely be drafted either for or against the current policy of simply honoring marriages from Canada, as we do now.