Canada has WMDs

[kandrathe]

Wasn't Boris Becker a tennis player? Wouldn't you "Drive" golf balls? :)

[pakman]

Sure, they can move to the US, but the Canadian marriage license of same-sex couples will not be recognized, it will just be another pair of men or women that are living together in the eyes of the law.

[Feryar]

Yes, Boris Becker was a tennis player with an evil serve. Imagine him hitting tennisballs at you.
OK? Now imagine him hitting golfballs at you :P

[Jester]

... an American like yourself would recognize the difference between a law which increases liberty and one which diminishes it.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Do you understand the difference? Must the marital status of Arab men be condoned as valid when they have multiple wives? Hey, that increases liberty. Bring back polygamy, there's many a Morman who'd be pleased! Screw it, let's make harems legal, that increases liberty too.

What is going to happen regarding gay marriage in the US will take its own sweet time, as I pointed out. Maybe next year, maybe next decade, maybe next generation, I really can't predict that. It is bound up in the desire of the people to subsidize gay marriage as a tax loophole exploitation, and to incorporate it as a societal norm. The tax advantage is one element of this issue that both the proponents and the opponents will jump all over. (I saw those points being made as long ago as the 1980's in Virginia!)

Many laws are attempts to create a certain social condition that makes the most people happy. But no law makes everyone happy.

Oh dear, where are my manners, pedophilia laws restrict the liberty of pedophiles, how dare we pass laws against them! Well, there seem to be good reasons to do so. Maybe there is indeed a good reason to codify the gay relationship as 'outside the bounds of marriage' since that social norm has been passed to us with profound gender roles attached to it.

Lee Marvin's famous palimony case was a massive defeat for common sense, but it addressed the issue of 'cohabitation without marriage.' In it, marriage-like divorce penalties were awarded to a tart who had lived with Marvin for some years, not within the bonds of marriage (here, a civil marriage is as binding as a church marriage) and was then 'let go' as the two cooled toward one another. But Marvin could not write her off as a deduction, even though he may have written her off as a business expense, not sure on the history of that.

It will take some test cases to change the law, for the simple reason that, in this country, rewarding people for making the commitment to marriage with tax provisions is a piece of legislation aimed at aiding and abetting stable families and hence a stable social framework. (Sadly, divorce law and rulings there have been at odds with that vision.)

So, what is the hurry? How dare Canada, or a Canadian, postulate 'a better law' within my borders? How arrogant! How rude! And this from my esteemed colleague who will at times wax poetic on American arrogance in international affairs? As I pointed out in a few of the death penalty threads, and gun laws threads: inside my borders, your opinion on my nation's laws are not worth spit, enjoy the laws that make you happy to be Canadian.

Twisted thought on 'why the hurry': Maybe some of you nice Canadians are afraid that a great many American gay couples will run to Canada to marry and live, rather than work and wait for change here, and create a demographic imbalance. Funnily enough, now that I think of it, I suspect that any number of Americans would be happy to see that very exodus take place.

The change will come, or it won't, in good time. If that aint fast enough for you, so be it.

[Chaerophon]

Hell, I live in Vancouver. We've already got a 'demographic imbalance'. Doesn't bother me any.

inside my borders, your opinion on my nation's laws are not worth spit, enjoy the laws that make you happy to be Canadian.

Okay, fair enough, then tell your government to quit trying to impose foreign policy goals on us through the use of threatened "trade pressure" and other means via your arrogant ambassadors. For that matter, live by your agreements and accept the economic certainty that even if we were subsidizing our softwood industry, you're still better off paying less for it. I never want to hear another word from your "ambassadors" or from your "unions".

My point is, that's not the way that it works. I despise American gun laws, I despise yokel politics and if that's the way that I feel, I've got every right in the world to voice that opinion. You think that we're not getting intense pressure from the United States up here regarding our pot laws? Unfortunately, since we don't have the economic clout of your country, we aren't able to create the same pressure on you regarding the issues that you mentioned. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about them. When the Americans run off and annex someone in order to impose their way of life, that's worth condemnation. A few Canadians' opinions upon the backwards, self-deceptive and militant stance of American political objectives and policies don't compare. The day that we try to impose them on you, as you are so fond of saying, "at the point of a bayonet" is the day that you can call us out. Otherwise, you can certainly disagree with our opinions on policy, but to propose that good taste should restrict our "first amendment rights"? How un-American of you! I thought that that was what we were out there fighting for!

[kandrathe]

Yes, I agree. The issue of religious and moral freedom at some point intersects the state in enforcing laws meant to protect some, and to clarify legal responsibilities in others.

For instance, The Smart Case could be misconstrued as a right of a devotly religious man to have multiple wives. Or, is he a psychotic who kidnaps and abuses children?

Marriage in a State (or Federal) context, more to the point, usually clarifies a legal distinction in the sharing and ownership of property and other legal responsibilites. So, in the State's eyes as well as the church, the two become one, unless otherwise stated in some prenuptial contract. From a purely secular POV, it makes no difference what the sexes of the participants are in the contract.

But, I would caution that it may be just the camels nose in the tent, when it comes to the rights of those who live alternative lifestyles. Polygamy as you indicate, would be perhaps the next lifestyle to consider. Beyond the Mormons, I have met some people who are involved in polyamory, which to most, would seem very strange. In some cases I've seen, there are entire webs of complex committed relationships. I have no idea how you would manage that as a marriage.

As I see this issue unfolding, the only arguments against allowing same sex marriage in the USA will be foremost, the costs of additional domestic partner benefits, and then also the religious one.

[Jester]

"The change will come, or it won't, in good time. If that aint fast enough for you, so be it."

What does this mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell. What, we're all supposed to be observers rather than advocates? If you want it changed (I do) then you say so (I did). If you're a citizen of a democratic country, you say so with a vote (I did). Then it gets passed into law (It has). Then other people look to it, to see if it is just (It is).

So, where, exactly, did I jump the gun? What arcane process should I have undergone? What are you calling me out for? For being so terribly pigheaded as to believe in peoples' right to determine their own marital arrangements? For suggesting (GASP) that a Canadian law might actually be as just in your country as in mine? This is why you accuse me of arrogance? For hoping that, just maybe, a just law in my country might just spill over into yours, thanks to more than a century of mutual trust?

If your laws are just, they will be seen as such.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

You touch upon the problem, but you miss the main point.

Yes, I agree. The issue of religious and moral freedom at some point intersects the state in enforcing laws meant to protect some, and to clarify legal responsibilities in others.

Starting about sixteen centuries ago, the morals of the Catholic Church and the laws of the European states became deeply intertwined. This is displayed by the adoption of the seven day week (a Judeo-Christian artifact unknown to the Greeks and Romans). It is displayed by many other customs such as the burial of the dead. One of the places this shows up the most is in the laws concerning marriage. The prejudices and superstitions of the Christians became the secular laws.

Indeed, modern marriage is a complex affair, having legal, social, and religious ramifications. The most important concept of marriage as a stable organization for the protection and well being of children has almost totally gone by the board. The number of divorces, the number of single parent "families" attest to that. Meanwhile, marriage is a tax factor, a benefits factor and pretty damned near everything else.

The rules, laws, customs that worked in the past do not and cannot work now. The religious aspects to marriage need to be whatever the individuals involved desire them to be as long as no outside party is harmed and no one is forced. The social aspects of "marriage" will continue to be what they have always been, namely that in private life people associate with the people they want to associate with and exclude those they wish to exclude.

It is the legal aspect of "marriage" that needs to be reexamined. Marriage should be a contract between the people involved with rights and responsibilities set out not by the state but by the parties in the marriage. The state's only involvement should be the same as in any other contract, the arbitrator of disputes.

This would open a whole can of worms on issues like child support, like health care benefits, and so on. That would mean new customs, new contracts between employers and employees, etc. That is the price that will have to be payed to eliminate the prejudice of one sect from the laws that need to govern all. The morals of a village are, maybe and with some suffering and ostracism, adequate for that village. They can't be, and shouldn't be, made to apply to the whole world.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Hi Occhi,

It is bound up in the desire of the people to subsidize gay marriage as a tax loophole exploitation, and to incorporate it as a societal norm.

Justice is justice, as Jester pointed out. We have a constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we take seriously. Incorporating societal norms is a weak way to state it.

Now, to address the other part of your comment:

I know next to nothing about how American tax laws treat marriage, so I can only speak to the way Canadian tax laws work. There are spousal deductions that are supposed to help families who have only one working spouse. How many are there of that sort of 'family' these days, in society in general, let alone in the small sub-set of gay relationships that are now going to be legally spouses? I only work part-part time and I have yet to qualify for that deduction.

There is a strong money component to the desire for legal marriage though, quite apart from the legitimizing of the relationship by the state. These almost all fall at the end of life. Life insurance policy payouts are made tax-free to a spouse, but are part of the last tax return of the deceased for anyone else. Most pension plans have a "survivor benefit" for a spouse, including our national Canada Pension Plan. Most Canadian married folks have, one way or another, made use of the "Spousal Donations" to our Registered Retirement Savings Plans. What this does is help equalize taxable income in the retirement years, when one wage earner has made more money over time than his spouse.

Now if any couple manages to stay married long enough to make use of these so-called loopholes, more power to them. They deserve them. And they sure don't deserve to be ousted of some of their combined life savings by some twerp of a nephew or niece that shows up and tries to contest the will.

[wakim]

Marriage is different from every other contract: marriage is a union whose purpose is to create and nurture new life, not to confer ownership of property or grant tax benefits. Two people could easily form a corporation and enjoy many joint benefits in tax exemption, property ownership, and even group rates on health insurance (polygamists take note). Having lost sight of the purpose of marriage it is then easy to assume that a contract for property rights or health care benefits is what is being negotiated; it isn't, these are ancillary issues. People can enter into other types of associations and contracts with their own self-interest as the paramount concern, but marriage is different in that it involves more than the concerns of those two people who originally negotiated the contract as it will ultimately engage non-consentual participants, viz. childern (aside from other procreatory methods, you wouldn't deny adoption to a married couple based soley upon their sexual orientation, would you?). Self-interest must yield to altruism for marriage to function and solipsists make poor parents.

[kandrathe]

You touch upon the problem, but you miss the main point.

Or, I avoided getting into the detail that you did. I agree with your assessment.

[RogueMage]

Oh dear, where are my manners, pedophilia laws restrict the liberty of pedophiles, how dare we pass laws against them!  Well, there seem to be good reasons to do so.  Maybe there is indeed a good reason to codify the gay relationship as 'outside the bounds of marriage' since that social norm has been passed to us with profound gender roles attached to it.

Congratulations, Occhi, associating gay marriage with pedophilia is a stroke of demagoguery worthy of a Republican Senator (Santorum to be specifid). Please keep your bigotry to yourself.

[kandrathe]

I think that reference was in response to America being the land of the free. I also bristle at the idea that we all should hence be tolerant of any deviant lifestyle. Our culture, laws, and norms are not at that place, and I believe what Occhi was getting at was that you cannot force attitudes to change, they just do over time. You can educate and remove obvious barriers within the system, but people are free to think what they will.

For example, if an employee decides that on Monday, Wednesday and Friday he would like to go to work dressed as a woman, should the employer just be tolerant or face a discrimination lawsuit. I can see no reason from a freedom and liberty POV that the employee should be denied that right, yet I can also see why an employer would discourage it. This is a social dialog that we have not undertaken in society, and until it has occured, the result of using the government as an instrument to force social change will only be negative for all concerned.

Back to the point Pete and I discussed. From the POV of the State (or whatever government), marriage should just be viewed as a contract between persons. Any religious or social meaning should be left up to the persons involved to decide. Then, as with other contracts, the legal system becomes involved as intermediary for settling disputes. But, are there any boundaries that you would place on these contracts? How many persons? What if I wanted to "marry" my goldfish? 15 year old cousin? The town of Salem, MA?

Edit: Nod to Pete's nit. Removed the word "two".

[dahak_i]

"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."

Simply not honoring the Canadian contract doesn't work. It's a legal document, and the State's only reason for ignoring it would be "...because you're gay." At that point, it would be the same as saying "...because you're black/white/hispanic/yellow with polka dots."

The US is faced with two choices: Honor the contract, or don't. But either choice will have a deep impact. If we choose to honor it, we take a large step towards legalizing gay marriage in the US. If not, we would not be able to honor ANY Canadian marriages. At that point, you can't pick and choose... unless, of course, you want to be sued by every single exception you make.

From a personal standpoint, marriage is a relationship wherein you pledge yourself to your spouse(s). Whatever religious practices you bring into the marriage, you do so only on a personal level.

Various other posts in this thread make the point that as far as the law is concerned, marriage is merely a contract. Read them, they explain it better than I can ;-).

In either case, it is as I said before: The US must choose one way or the other. The time left for simply sitting on the fence post is almost gone.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe American gays won't marry in Canada. And even if they do, they CERTAINLY won't try to continue to live in the US. And even if they do, I'm sure each and every one of them will be perfectly happy if the State decides not to honor their marriage. Because if so much as ONE couple in ONE state decides to challenge, in court, to have their marriage honored, you've got a PRECEDENT.

I'm not a student of law, nor do I claim to be any more than vaguely aware of exactly how it works. But all it takes is once. One case, one ruling, either for or against. Getting a foot in that door is tough, but this legislation in Canada has kicked it wide open.

[dahak_i]

It's not even strictly about increasing/decreasing liberty.

The fact of the matter is, the laws of a society are ordered for the betterment of that society. A pedophile has rights, just like you or I. However, if it were legal for anyone to just go around raping, or even having consesual sex with, children, it would have a tremendously adverse affect on society.

As of now in the United States, it is illegal to discriminate based on age/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, etc etc etc.

Gays can't marry because currently because it was that way first and no one's been able to change it yet. However, now we see a big, gaping loophole: To not honor the Canadian marriage contract of a gay couple while simoultaneously honoring that of a straight couple is discrimination based on sexual orientation. While we're at it, we might as well say that black marriages in Canada don't have to be honored here[the US].

So as I've said before, we have to choose one or the other. Choose not to honor it, and you've got to deal with those Canadian marriages currently in the US. Choose to honor it, and you've got a huge push for similar legislation in the US.

[Occhidiangela]

(For Jester) EDIT

Ask any Palestinian.

"Just?" "Just because."

Each judgement on 'justice' is bounded by underlying assumptions, and influenced by common cultural assumptions. An excellent example is the death penalty. So, given the mosaic that is the American cultural fabric, maybe your arrogance needs to be checked at the door as regards 'justice.'

How about when your sister gets murdered? Check your understanding of justice then, versus your currently detached view.

[--Pete]

Hi,

marriage is a union whose purpose is to create and nurture new life, not to confer ownership of property or grant tax benefits.

That is a large part at the core of the problem. What you state is still the opinion of many. However, it is not the reality. Many marriages are intentionally sterile, especially in advanced countries and in higher socio-economic brackets. Many children are being raised by single parents, either because of divorce or by being born out of wedlock. So, the historical and traditional Western European attitude about marriage no longer holds in reality.

On the other hand, tax laws and employment benefits put a lot of emphasis on the legal aspects of marriage. And, here too the reality is at variance with the mental image many have. In many heterosexual childless married couples, both partners work. However, the tax laws and the health insurance coverage are based on the mostly obsolete model that the family consists of a male wage earner, a female homemaker and some number (greater than 2) of children.

So, if one is looking for the problems with the laws concerning government, the basis for that search needs to be the reality of what marriage is *at the present*. Basing one's opinions on an outdated model is foolish.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

dahak_i

A Canadian citizen won't be influenced. One seeking naturalization would, over the course of the seven year process.

And now we come to the matter of choice.

You choose to be gay and married, and wish to accrue the benefits of America's lower taxation rates? Until the law changes, stay in Canada. Gee, looks like you have to make a choice. What is more important: being a US citizen, or your marriage?

*fast forward a few years*

Things change in the US, the choice changes, most likely in a favorable direction.

If you want to emigrate into the US, you have to play by US rules. If you want to emigrate to France, you must play by French Rules. If you want to emigrate to Saudi Arabia, Mrs. Smith, then put on the burka and sell the hot pants before you leave.

No one has the 'right' to unlimited choice. The world is not that homogenous, yet. Maybe in time it will be.

[Occhidiangela]

For Rogue Mage

The title was liberty and license.

Or don't you get it?

Read this again, and think before you open your trap.

Maybe there is indeed a good reason to codify the gay relationship as 'outside the bounds of marriage' since that social norm has been passed to us with profound gender roles attached to it.

As for the rest of your BS, get bent.