Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[drankin]

(Referring to post #312)
The Christian churches do not hesitate to refer to Lev 18:22, even though it is Old Testament, to justify their stance on homosexuality yet totally ignore Lev 20:13 which says that homosexuals should be put to death. Is that not cherry picking?

This really is no different from them using Lev 25:44 to justify slavery a few centuries earlier. It seems to me if a church is going to accept and promote some passages of a book of the Bible but reject others, it requires a bit of an explanation.

The real question is what is the state's interest in maintaining marriage between only a man and a woman. Though you may not see the specifying of marriage to be only between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens, homosexuals do see it that way.

Though marriage is sanctioned by the church, it also satisfies many civil purposes such as child support, spousal support, and inheritance. Without marriage many women would have to, and do, rely on the state for support while they are raising children. These same issues are important to homosexuals. The state has a very important role in marriage.

As far as child support, it's simple. Whomever has custody receives child support from the biological or adopted parent if he/she does not share the household. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

 

[skeptic2]

Alas the perils of addressing too many different things in one post. It makes it easy to cherry pick the issues one wants to discuss and ignore the issues one does not.

 

[signerror]

That's just it. Does specifying marriage to be between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens? I don't see it that way and I don't believe blacks in California see it that way.

Of course it does. It's explicit discrimination against gays: e.g. it prevents gay couples from getting tax benefits that straight couples receive.

 

[drankin]

Alas the perils of addressing too many different things in one post. It makes it easy to cherry pick the issues one wants to discuss and ignore the issues one does not.

Do you want to discuss theology or the OP? I'm not cherry picking, I'm trying to stay on topic.

 

[drankin]

Of course it does. It's explicit discrimination against gays: e.g. it prevents gay couples from getting tax benefits that straight couples receive.

That gets back to the idea that maybe the change should be that the government makes no distinction between married and unmarried individuals. But, that isn't going to happen anytime soon if at all. If tax status was the only factor, that could be appended to include "unions" leaving the religious institution of marriage alone.

 

[mgb_phys]

Interesting. The bible is full of examples of mixed marriages.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
According to the Virginia judge who supported the law. It is possible to believe there may be some disconnect between Jesus' teachings and some of his alleged followers.

Again, that was a race issue, this is not.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
That sounds equally applicable to same-sex marriages.

I agree with you. It took me some time to figure it out but because marriage really is a religious institution, the government should make no distinctions concerning it. Why should a single person be taxed differently that a married person? for example.

Perhaps it will go the other way? More financial agreements will come under the rule of the church.
Do you Dankin take this cell phone contract for better or worse, for richer or poorer until Verizon do you part. Amen

 

[drankin]

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
According to the Virginia judge who supported the law. It is possible to believe there may be some disconnect between Jesus' teachings and some of his alleged followers.


"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
That sounds equally applicable to same-sex marriages.


Perhaps it will go the other way? More financial agreements will come under the rule of the church.
Do you Dankin take this cell phone contract for better or worse, for richer or poorer until Verizon do you part. Amen

Absolutely, there will always be some disconnect between Jesus' teachings and some of his alleged followers.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..." think about these words and how it would apply to a marriage between people of the same sex. Which has never been fundamental to our existence.

I don't understand your last point.

 

[mgb_phys]

You made the excellent point that the solution to the whole problem is for the state to not marry anyone.
People should just be free to nominate a significant other for any legal requirements.

Then if a couple want a Priest/Rabbi/Iman/Jedi to wave a magic wand over their relationship they are free to invent whatever ceremonies they want. But it's nothing to do with the state.

Taking it to the other extreme, if the church demands a say in what for most people is just a tax/pension/visa convenience then maybe they should also have a say in a much bigger commitment like a mortgage or a RRSP.

 

[drankin]

You made the excellent point that the solution to the whole problem is for the state to not marry anyone.
People should just be free to nominate a significant other for any legal requirements.

Then if a couple want a Priest/Rabbi/Iman/Jedi to wave a magic wand over their relationship they are free to invent whatever ceremonies they want. But it's nothing to do with the state.

Taking it to the other extreme, if the church demands a say in what for most people is just a tax/pension/visa convenience then maybe they should also have a say in a much bigger commitment like a mortgage or a RRSP.

Churches don't need to have a say on finances of private citizens. And if they think they do, that would be between the private citizen and the church. Not the state. I don't see where that is even a concern, anyway.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't see where that is even a concern, anyway.

I think I was agreeing with you!

Slightly off topic, is there any New Testament basis for anti-gay rulings. Other than St. Paul of course and if you stuck by his writings you wouldn't let women in either. In fact you generally get the feeling that even christians wouldn't be allowed in his church!

 

[drankin]

I think I was agreeing with you!

Slightly off topic, is there any New Testament basis for anti-gay rulings. Other than St. Paul of course and if you stuck by his writings you wouldn't let women in either. In fact you generally get the feeling that even christians wouldn't be allowed in his church!

I apologize for not following you.

There is some basic doctrine concerning homosexuality in the New Testament. I'll look it up and PM you when I get home.

There are a lot of things many churches have deviated from to stay "with the times". But, I'm old school, if you don't take it as it is then you should not take (cherry pick) any of it.

As long as people are handing out money to a church there will be a McChurch that is "just right" for you.

 

[LowlyPion]

That's just it. Does specifying marriage to be between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens? I don't see it that way and I don't believe blacks in California see it that way.

Actually yes it does. There are practical issues about such mundane things as child custody, inheritance exemptions, income tax breaks, that flow to committed heterosexual partners that are not available under the law. These considerations result in unequal treatment. Not making civil unions available to same sex individuals then is a discrimination every bit as antithetical to the notion of equal protection as race.

As to blacks supporting Prop 8 in the last election, let's see how they vote in the next, after being reminded that there but for the Grace of God were they not all that long ago, simply because of the color of their skin.

I'm all for churches being as prejudiced as they want to be as to their membership and their traditions. If Mormons want to believe that blacks can't be Mormon priests, then let them cleave to their Curse of Cain beliefs. Or if Fundamentalists want to believe that gays are an abomination ... then I don't have to join if I don't agree. That can remain within the faith and I see no need for secular interference in their business.

However for them to want to impose their moral beliefs secularly, by saying that souls cannot co-join in legally recognized secular unions, and enjoy the same benefits thereof, merely because they are the same sex, looks to me to be precisely the kind of tyranny against the few that the First Amendment anticipates in setting forth the Establishment Clause.

 

[skeptic2]

It took me some time to figure it out but because marriage really is a religious institution, the government should make no distinctions concerning it.

So your point is at least the government should make no law prohibiting gay marriage?

 

[drankin]

So your point is at least the government should make no law prohibiting gay marriage?

My point is that the government should make no law concerning marriage. Gay or otherwise. There should be no discrimination between a single person or a married person. Gay person or heterosexual person. White person or black person. The only discrimination I think we can all agree on is age, that is the distinction between children and adults. Pretty much solves the controversy IMO.

Of course, this would never happen.

 

[drankin]

Actually yes it does. There are practical issues about such mundane things as child custody, inheritance exemptions, income tax breaks, that flow to committed heterosexual partners that are not available under the law. These considerations result in unequal treatment. Not making civil unions available to same sex individuals then is a discrimination every bit as antithetical to the notion of equal protection as race.

As to blacks supporting Prop 8 in the last election, let's see how they vote in the next, after being reminded that there but for the Grace of God were they not all that long ago, simply because of the color of their skin.

I'm all for churches being as prejudiced as they want to be as to their membership and their traditions. If Mormons want to believe that blacks can't be Mormon priests, then let them cleave to their Curse of Cain beliefs. Or if Fundamentalists want to believe that gays are an abomination ... then I don't have to join if I don't agree. That can remain within the faith and I see no need for secular interference in their business.

However for them to want to impose their moral beliefs secularly, by saying that souls cannot co-join in legally recognized secular unions, and enjoy the same benefits thereof, merely because they are the same sex, looks to me to be precisely the kind of tyranny against the few that the First Amendment anticipates in setting forth the Establishment Clause.

I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

 

[russ_watters]

You made the excellent point that the solution to the whole problem is for the state to not marry anyone.
People should just be free to nominate a significant other for any legal requirements.

Then if a couple want a Priest/Rabbi/Iman/Jedi to wave a magic wand over their relationship they are free to invent whatever ceremonies they want. But it's nothing to do with the state...

Which is why in some other countries this isn't as hot of an issue as it is here. I think Elton John was quoted earlier in the thread saying that it sidesteps the controversy completely by separating the religious and civil definitions. In the US, right or wrong, people have the feeling that some groups and the government are trying to dictate to religions how they should do things.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is that the government should make no law concerning marriage. Gay or otherwise. There should be no discrimination between a single person or a married person. Gay person or heterosexual person. White person or black person. The only discrimination I think we can all agree on is age, that is the distinction between children and adults. Pretty much solves the controversy IMO.

Of course, this would never happen.

How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...

Anyway, I agree. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination (paraphrase of a supreme court justice).

 

[drankin]

How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...

Anyway, I agree. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination (paraphrase of a supreme court justice).

One reason it could never happen is because divorce is such a lucrative industry for lawyers. Imagine getting a divorce and being able to keep all your own stuff and not having to pay off your spouse!

 

[russ_watters]

The real question is what is the state's interest in maintaining marriage between only a man and a woman. Though you may not see the specifying of marriage to be only between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens, homosexuals do see it that way.

Calling it "the real question" doesn't make it so. Different sides see the issue differently - that's just a reality, whether you like it or not. People will no doubt try to frame the issue in a way that makes the outcome more favorable to their position/denigrating to the other, but that doesn't mean others will accept that framing and it doesn't make their characterization of the opposition true.

Heck, if anything that hardens the other side when people try to do that. And appears to be the predominant debate tactic of that side on this issue - not just here, but in the media too. Like that buffoon Olberman who accused people of trying to stand in the way of the happiness of others. Silly.

Though marriage is sanctioned by the church, it also satisfies many civil purposes such as child support, spousal support, and inheritance. Without marriage many women would have to, and do, rely on the state for support while they are raising children. These same issues are important to homosexuals. The state has a very important role in marriage.

True, but why does it need to? Why should a divorced couple divide their stuff equally (that's a big reason for the demise of the institution right now, imo)? Why does a couple have to be married to adopt (as if it matters: it's still only a coin flip if they will stay together)? Does not being married absolve someone of the requirement to support their kids (no)? Does your dying grandmother really want your spouse to get their inheritance (probably not, but if they do, they can put it in their will)?

These issues are, for the most part imo, wrongly connected to marriage.

 

[russ_watters]

One reason it could never happen is because divorce is such a lucrative industry for lawyers. Imagine getting a divorce and being able to keep all your own stuff and not having to pay off your spouse!

Heh, true - there's no commission in that!

That is a big flaw in our legal system: lawers write the laws that make profit for them. It's the same flaw as when politicians vote themselves a pay raise.

 

[LowlyPion]

I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

Yeah well I say you don't get to define it for me. You can for yourself of course, but you can't by secular decree charge the word for everyone else that doesn't share your specific religious perspective, or your personal imperatives.

When you are in your church, only call it marriage if it's only between opposite sex partners. Refuse to sanctify same sex unions. Refuse to perform them. Knock yourself out. Debate how it may be used within the walls of your church all you want, restrict it there all you want, but trying to charge the word with your particular view of what it means ... imposing your definition through secular fiat and not through common usage, looks to me to be a less than satisfactory solution. It looks to me like an abridgment of the separation provided by the Establishment Clause.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

By that logic, no marriage performed by someone like a justice of the peace should be called a marriage either. Since marriage is already legally defined as a civil institution, one can hardly argue now for the "sanctity" of all marriages.

By your definition, how many married people would no longer be married?

 

[russ_watters]

By that logic, no marriage performed by someone like a justice of the peace should be called a marriage either.

If we re-define it that way, yes.

By your definition, how many married people would no longer be married?

Probably none, since like with Prop 8, it wouldn't necessarily be retroactive.

That would seem to fall under the basic prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Since marriage is already legally defined as a civil institution, one can hardly argue now for the "sanctity" of all marriages.

No doubt!

 

[thoughtgaze]

Mmmm yeah I'm going to have to agree with the person that said we must use the "civil union" term for legal purposes but the word marriage should be associated with as much arbitrariness and ambiguity as the word god or love. Just like most people define god, love, differently so too "marriage" should be lumped in this category. Just some word people can play around with as they see fit to make themselves happy. Get over it I say, as long as the rights are the same... this is all that matters.

 

[mgb_phys]

Mmmm yeah I'm going to have to agree with the person that said we must use the "civil union" term for legal purposes but the word marriage should be associated with as much arbitrariness and ambiguity as the word god or love.

Great line from Luka in Taxi

When we get married our hands are tied together over a cow that must moo 3 times.
>Really, what does that signify?
In my culture we believe that is only mindless superstition and pointless ritual that separate us from the animals.

 

[drankin]

Yeah well I say you don't get to define it for me. You can for yourself of course, but you can't by secular decree charge the word for everyone else that doesn't share your specific religious perspective, or your personal imperatives.

When you are in your church, only call it marriage if it's only between opposite sex partners. Refuse to sanctify same sex unions. Refuse to perform them. Knock yourself out. Debate how it may be used within the walls of your church all you want, restrict it there all you want, but trying to charge the word with your particular view of what it means ... imposing your definition through secular fiat and not through common usage, looks to me to be a less than satisfactory solution. It looks to me like an abridgment of the separation provided by the Establishment Clause.

It's the other way around. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage between the same sex is a new "definition" imposed by the homosexual community.

 

[phyzmatix]

Well, it seems it's been decided:

California upholds Proposition 8 gay marriage ban

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When Prop 8 was passed, apparently there was a last minute disinformation campaign that threw the black vote [a bit of irony considering the long and historic battle for civil rights, for blacks]. So it may be that the bill could be overturned fairly soon given another popular vote.

So you believe that it is ironic that blacks would vote against gay marriage? Maybe it is because they realize that gay marriage is not a race issue. It is a marriage issue.

As to blacks supporting Prop 8 in the last election, let's see how they vote in the next, after being reminded that there but for the Grace of God were they not all that long ago, simply because of the color of their skin.

Both hispanics and blacks, while tending to vote liberal, are fairly conservative when it comes to issues of "family values" and the like.
I actually think that relating the gay marriage issue to racism and apartheid is considered laughable and even insulting to a lot of black people. Especially since a lot of people, particularly religious people, believe that homosexuality is a choice. Even if they except that gays are born that way there is still the fact that a gay person will only be descriminated against if it is found out they are gay. It doesn't take much to find out a person is black. Obviously a gay couple necessarily outs themselves when they try to get married but the relation is still likely to be seen as rediculous by people who deal with bigotry as a matter of course when ever a bigot so much as sees them.
I think they really need to be careful about these sorts of comments or they may hurt their cause more than helping it. All of their material that I have heard and seen has been either melodramatic or so vague as to not even mention the fact that they are referring to gay marriage.

I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

Best resolution for the problem. Call all "marriages" between anyone civil unions for all legal purposes and no longer use the word "marriage" for any legal purpose at all what ever.

 

[cristo]

I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.

It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.

 

[drankin]

It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.

That's basically it. The term marriage has always meant a family commitment between a man and a woman for the last few thousand years or so. Now, it doesn't mean that... so much. People are a bit confused about how marriage applies, partially because they don't understand what homosexuality has to do with it. It's strange to them, doesn't make much sense and it's hijacking their idea of family and the associated values.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

People are a bit confused about how marriage applies, partially because they don't understand what homosexuality has to do with it. It's strange to them, doesn't make much sense and it's hijacking their idea of family and the associated values.

What about it precludes homosexuality?

 

[drankin]

What about it precludes homosexuality?

Absolutely, nothing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.

I don't understand what is so beneficial to society about defining a special legal relationship between exactly two people who may and may not be the same sex. What purpose is served here?

What does this allow that contract law does not?

 

[cristo]

I don't understand what is so beneficial to society about defining a special legal relationship between exactly two people who may and may not be the same sex. What purpose is served here?

But that's a different topic of discussion. The question here is 'why should one type of relationship be recognised by the state and other types not?', not 'why should the state acknowledge any relationship?'.

 

[skeptic2]

It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.

One difference is it is difficult to construct a verb for civil partnership. What would it be? "Mom, Dad, I'm going to civil partner with Bob." makes it sound like regular marriage isn't so civil. Then there's marital status question on so many forms... Married, Single, Civil Partnered. Also birth or adoption certificates - Mother's name, Father's name, Civil Partner's name.