Canada has WMDs

[Roland]

It does, however, have a tradition of upholding marriages under Canadian law as if it were your own.

Our country has a right to continue to recnognize Canadian marriages that conform to our societal norms (read: man and woman), while at the same time refusing to recognize those that do NOT conform (read: same-sex). You seem to think it's black and white: we either accept all, or we accept none. That is a poor, and inaccurate, assumption, IMHO.

I'm no lawyer, but I can almost guarantee you that we can do exactly as I have stated: accept the traditional marriages, like we always have, but reject same-sex marriage licenses. There's no law, to my knowledge, that we "accept all or none". And, that being the case (if it is; I can't say with complete certainty, but I'd be surprised if I'm wrong), you have no right to tell us it should be that way. Any more than we have a right to tell you that smoking pot should be illegal.

Bottom line: what YOU want, what YOU think is just, doesn't mean jack in OUR country. You don't live here, therefore, you don't get to decide OUR laws in OUR country. I think that is Occhi's point (Occhi, please correct me if I am wrong).

Now, personally, I'm liking the ideas that Pete is raising. But, then, I've always been completely against the whole idea of getting married for a tax break. Even moreso, however, I've always been against the state deciding that just because two people live together for a time, they become legally married. I am TOTALLY against that, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is moral / societal), and I think that law should be changed. But, I'll be content enough that that stupid law is not in effect in the state I choose to live in (I currently reside in Mass., and I hope to always, more or less, reside here; I shall DEFINITELY have to look up in our books whether we have any sort of law stating the above; if so, I'm going to be real ticked off :P), and hope that work can be done from there. As for my opinion on the original topic: let each state decide whether it recognizes it or not. If it does, great. If not, so be it. As Occhi said, change will come when it is ready; not before. I'm fine with that.