06-20-2003, 07:04 PM
Just a note:
Although a same-sex marriage will not be recognized by federal law in the USofA, or any other FEDERAL jurisdiction in the world at this time, there are regional jurisdictions that do recognize them.
One such place happens to be Vermont, which has recognized same-sex marriages for years.
Also, whether the proposed change in legislation is actually passed in Canada: A recent poll showed public opinion pretty close either way. 54% approved of the change, and 44% disapproved. The rest were undecided, which I think is a very low percentage to be undecided. Cretian has given his party members the option to vote as they wish on this issue, so there will be no official party line set for the majority Liberals to follow. I haven't heard what the other parties are doing this way, but I would suspect that the Alliance party might set their party line against the legislation. None of the Alliance members are likely to vote for it, anyway. The PCs will be anybody's guess, and the NDP will probably be for it.
Where it stands at this point, I think it would be very possible that the bill will be rejected. With all of the Alliance against it, as well as most of the PCs and quite a few of the Liberals, it will be pretty tight.
The public opinion poll is interesting, since the response was so heavily influenced by the way the question was put. I believe that a lot of people would feel the way that I do. I really don't care if a same-sex couple gets married, but I don't "approve". So, I would answer "Yes" that the legislation should pass, not "No" if asked if I approve of same-sex marriage.
Finally, as far as the tax situation is concerned, it probably would NOT be neutral. In most large urban centers, both people in a couple work. Although they can opt to file their taxes separately, there are still some benefits and deductions that are not available for a couple that are available for singles. The tax benefits that come in for the survivor of a couple would not compensate for a lifetime of increased taxation and reduced benefits.
-rcv-
Although a same-sex marriage will not be recognized by federal law in the USofA, or any other FEDERAL jurisdiction in the world at this time, there are regional jurisdictions that do recognize them.
One such place happens to be Vermont, which has recognized same-sex marriages for years.
Also, whether the proposed change in legislation is actually passed in Canada: A recent poll showed public opinion pretty close either way. 54% approved of the change, and 44% disapproved. The rest were undecided, which I think is a very low percentage to be undecided. Cretian has given his party members the option to vote as they wish on this issue, so there will be no official party line set for the majority Liberals to follow. I haven't heard what the other parties are doing this way, but I would suspect that the Alliance party might set their party line against the legislation. None of the Alliance members are likely to vote for it, anyway. The PCs will be anybody's guess, and the NDP will probably be for it.
Where it stands at this point, I think it would be very possible that the bill will be rejected. With all of the Alliance against it, as well as most of the PCs and quite a few of the Liberals, it will be pretty tight.
The public opinion poll is interesting, since the response was so heavily influenced by the way the question was put. I believe that a lot of people would feel the way that I do. I really don't care if a same-sex couple gets married, but I don't "approve". So, I would answer "Yes" that the legislation should pass, not "No" if asked if I approve of same-sex marriage.
Finally, as far as the tax situation is concerned, it probably would NOT be neutral. In most large urban centers, both people in a couple work. Although they can opt to file their taxes separately, there are still some benefits and deductions that are not available for a couple that are available for singles. The tax benefits that come in for the survivor of a couple would not compensate for a lifetime of increased taxation and reduced benefits.
-rcv-