Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, I did not experience any bullying because of it. i told peopleand they were just fine with it. Never had any problems. Sure kids didn't understand at first, but I just had to explain, so they would understand.

a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.

 

[kathrynag]

a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.

Well, I'm 19. I know both of my mom's parents were not accepting at first, but they accepted it after some time.
I am female.
I lived in Ohio for a very short time, then lived in Florida for 8 years, and now am in Vermont.

 

[LowlyPion]

Sic 'em California.

California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

Nov 24th, 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO -- California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html

 

[Zantra]

Sic 'em California.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html

I just wanted to comment that although I don't agree, I understand people's positions on marriage being solely between a man and a woman. I do concede that it is their right to those beliefs. But I live in America, where everyone has a right to choice. In a land separated by church and state, in a land where my sworn enemy may advocate his position without fear of reprisal, and practice his lifestyle freely, even if I think that lifestyle is wrong. I also fear the alternative, which exists today still in many countries around the world.

So where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is invalid, maybe protestants are wrong. We could get rid of those Mormons- they believe in polygamy, so they need to go. And the Buddhists- they don't believe in the "true God". In fact, those atheists might as well not marry anymore either-they don't believe in God, why should they be entitled to a religious ceremony?

Sound pretty extreme,unfair, and biased yet? Well then you've just gotten a glimpse of what it's like to look through a different pair of eyes for a change. This issue isn't about redefining marriage. It's about separate but equal. It's about 2 drinking fountains and 3 bathrooms- men, women, and blacks. I'm sure many African Americans are offended by comparisons being drawn between this and slavery, and that's unfortunate-but I understand it's because of the deeply rooted religious beliefs many African Americans hold. But although they may choose not to see it, this is an issue of equality- and even if you're against homosexuality, equality is something to value, particularly if you're African American or any other minority in America.We still haven't learned from our past mistakes- and that is troubling.

Seperate but equal is a slippery slope, and if we start drawing lines, it's only a matter of time before this line comes to your doorstep. At some point you've fallen on someone's unfavorable list- everyone in their lives has encountered differing opinions. Yet we discussed, disagreed, shook hands, and moved on. Afterwards we didn't always see the other viewpoint, and maybe we shook our heads a little, but nothing was infringed, and no one was harmed. Yet here we stand debating yet another issue of relative unimportance in comparison to the rest of the universe. So at some point we either stop drawing lines, or before long there will be no one left to draw them. Just one straight, white middle-aged, upper middle class, American, Catholic male screaming his vitriol at nothing,clutching his Bible in one hand, Starbucks coffee in another, and waiting to die. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either equality applies to all, in all situations, or it is not true equality. For true equality there need to be no lines. the criteria for rights are that they don't affect the well-being of others, and this does not. That addresses the pologamy/pedophila argument.

For those who are against gay marriage, I would encourage you to truly ponder exactly why you oppose it- and see if it truly comes to you as an issue that personally affects you, or just a belief that hoimosexuals shouldn't marry. If it's the latter, then I hope you consider that carefully-who has the right to control someone else's life, weather we agree with them or not? For the religious folks, I am sorry, but I must go to this well again, because it has merit and meaning:

First they came…

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up


I try to keep my politics to a minimum on this board, as this isn't really the place for it in my view, but I do on occasion comment, and this is one of those occasions. My apologies to those who had to read this long post :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ

 

[Zantra]

Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ

This was hilarious. The full version is here:

http://www.funnyordie.com/

 

[LowlyPion]

Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM

 

[Zantra]

Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM

Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?

 

[LowlyPion]

Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?

This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

 

[Zantra]

This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.

I like how they call these people anarchists.

 

[rcgldr]

Legal aspects of prop 8:

The reason this hasn't come before the courts before is because there were never laws permitting gay marriage until recently, so there were never laws banning it. Opponents of gay marriage may have started something they really won't like the end of; if a SCOTUS ruling was to strike down the ban it would be a justification for gay marriage to be permitted nationwide.

It's not that recent. Courts in Hawaii declared same-sex marriage legal back in 1993. The Federal government passed a law against same sex marriage back in September 21, 1996, almost 12 years ago: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to accept any cases regarding these laws. As it stands right now, regardless of the laws in individual states, same sex marriage won't be recognized by the Federal government. This affects things like federal income taxes, or a foreigner becoming a citizen by marrying a US citizen.

Seperation of church and state in the USA originally applied to the federal government, not individual states, some of which had official religions in the early days of the USA, and up until the late 1960's, many states had blue laws (no liquor sales on Sundays, business had to be closed one day a week, ...). The point of the first amendment was freedom of beliefs (opinions), but not behaviors (actions), at pointed out in this letter from Jefferson:

legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

So far the legal analysis of prop 8 seems to indicate it should hold as a valid amendment, but it initially goes before the same court that decided 4 to 3 to legalize same sex marriage. My guess is that prop 8's survival is 50:50 at this point (if not overturned, perhaps another amendment vote in a few years). However I doubt the the Federal law is going to be overturned anytime soon, since it's been around for 12 years.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

More Prop 8 news for those who are interested...

Proposition 8 proponents filed a lawsuit today seeking to nullify 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June and November this year. The brief filed with the court was co-written by Pepperdine's law school dean Kenneth Star, who also was the former independent counsel that investigated President Bill Clinton. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," it read.

Attorney General Jerry Brown promptly responded to the filing in a statement this evening. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

source

It's quite encouraging (depending on your camp I suppose) to see that the man responsible for defending the proposition is stating it is unconstitutional.

In somewhat related news...

From Hollywood's perspective, there's a cloud over Barack Obama's inaugural. Now the question is whether the weather that day will simply be overcast or stormy.

Obama's selection of Orange County mega-pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in has hit liberal Hollywood in one of its sorest spots: the passage of Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, which Warren strongly supported. In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia.

Reaction in the entertainment industry -- where interestingly, Warren has his own powerful ties -- has been swift, angry and bitter. (And nothing undermines a good party quite like disappointment and hurt.)
cont...

 

[LowlyPion]

OK. So he's British. But still ...

Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7928563.stm

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

the analasys of the court proceedings so far I heard this morning is not so encouraging. the attourney for the gay couples is arguing that prop 8 ought to be invalidated because it is not an amendment (which can be voted on by the people) but rather a revision (which must be voted on by the legislature). the logic here is that since the California constitution states all persons are to be treated equally an amendment to ban gay marriage necessarily revises this clause.
apparently the judges were not so impressed with the arguement. the judges seemed to be of the opinion that it only banned the use of the label "marriage" but did not ban any of the legal aspects which are supposedly all cover by a domestic partnership and so does not appear to be an infringement on any fundamental rights. the attourney was challenged to explain why this would be the case and apparently only stated that it makes homosexuals second class citizens which is more or less a restatement of the idea that it infringes on fundamental rights and again the judges didn't seem impressed.

 

[mgb_phys]

Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)

 

[Count Iblis]

Kenneth Star argued that if the majority of the people decide so, rights up to and including freedom of speech rights could be limited.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)

It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally. The legally defined meaning of a single word can change the meaning and specification of a law or contract significantly. I'm not sure what the law here says about domestic partnerships but if there are any laws that specify application to marriage or married couples it obviously would not apply to any couple whose legal relationship is not defined as "marriage". Even if California law specifies that as far as the government is concerned "domestic partnership" and "marriage" are equivilant for the governments purposes this would not cover private persons, businesses, and organizations. Services, policies, and contracts can specify clauses that pretain to "married" couples and then deny contractual rights and services to those that are not legally defined as "married".
It's unfortunate that their attourney did not make such an arguement.

 

[mgb_phys]

It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally.

I agree - it's like having a civil rights amendment that says 'blacks aren't really people' but we won't persecute you!
My point was that Brown is criticizing California for doing exactly what his own party did in not allowing the word 'marriage'.

 

[Karl G.]

I wish I could criticize the whole mess ... but I live in Texas, where Gov. Perry wants sodomy to be illegal. http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews52.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, maybe Obama having Warren give the invocation at the Inaugural paid a little dividend in tolerance?

Warren waver on Prop 8 stuns leaders
Stance about-face at issue
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Saturday, April 11, 2009

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/11/warren-waver-stuns-leaders/?xid=rss-page

 

[LowlyPion]

California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html

Apparently it will be put back on the ballot again. After all the right to same sex marriages was changed by majority vote, it will simply be reversed by another vote. After another period of legality, another flood of marriages, the 18,000 valid weddings now swelling to greater numbers the next cycle and the morally intrusive will be faced with a lost cause.

 

[mgb_phys]

After all the right to same sex marriages was changed by majority vote, it will simply be reversed by another vote. After another period of legality, another flood of marriages,

Wouldn't it be easier to simply have a closed season, like hunting?
So gay marriages would be allowed in the spring and summer, but then banned again to protect morality when the weather starts getting bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would expect this to go to the US supreme court.

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.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think the general trend is inexorable. There will be gay marriages universally. There will be gays in the military. The morality police will be left on the side-lines to do their cluck-clucking.

 

[drankin]

I would expect this to go to the US supreme court.

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.

 

[Count Iblis]

It is a religious issue for many Americans. Blacks are more religious than average. The prevaling religious view is that God is anti-gay, although recent interpretations of religious texts suggest that God will tolerate gays using some sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy. This then amounts to tolerating gays in society, but not allowing gays to marry.

 

[mgb_phys]

Maybe it is because they realize that gay marriage is not a race issue. It is a marriage issue.

Many states had laws against mixed race marriages because it was similarly against God/Morality/The American Way of Life and would devalue marriage and cause a moral breakdown in society.
This was only overturned by the USSC in 1967

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

Gay people aren't entitled to their civil rights and equal treatment under the law? Truthfully, I could care less about gay marriage. What I care about is people being treated as second-class citizens. We are all equal in the eyes of the law; at least, that is the theory. I also note that this was once a core Republican principle.

 

[drankin]

Many states had laws against mixed race marriages because it was similarly against God/Morality/The American Way of Life and would devalue marriage and cause a moral breakdown in society.
This was only overturned by the USSC in 1967

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

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

 

[drankin]

Gay people aren't entitled to their civil rights and equal treatment under the law? Truthfully, I could care less about gay marriage. What I care about is people being treated as second-class citizens. We are all equal in the eyes of the law; at least, that is the theory. I also note that this was once a core Republican principle.

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.

 

[skeptic2]

It is a religious issue for many Americans. Blacks are more religious than average. The prevaling religious view is that God is anti-gay, although recent interpretations of religious texts suggest that God will tolerate gays using some sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy. This then amounts to tolerating gays in society, but not allowing gays to marry.

My reading of Leviticus is that God is not only anti-gay but also advocates their execution. I've always thought it odd that the churches use Leviticus to support their argument that homosexuality is immoral, yet back off from God's command that they be executed.

Cherry picking the parts of the Bible that one likes and ignoring the parts one doesn't like no doubt has contributed to the large number of denominations and contradictions in their beliefs.

 

[drankin]

My reading of Leviticus is that God is not only anti-gay but also advocates their execution. I've always thought it odd that the churches use Leviticus to support their argument that homosexuality is immoral, yet back off from God's command that they be executed.

Cherry picking the parts of the Bible that one likes and ignoring the parts one doesn't like no doubt has contributed to the large number of denominations and contradictions in their beliefs.

It's not cherry picking. What parts are being ignored? Leviticus is Old Testament, Christianity is based on the New Testament. Assuming using the term "churches" you are referring to Christians. I'm not defending every denominations stance on the issue but in general there is not a theological dichotomy when referring to homosexuality in scripture.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Gay people aren't entitled to their civil rights and equal treatment under the law?

I don't support homosexual marriage for the same reason I don't support heterosexual marriage: it's not the government's place.

We are all equal in the eyes of the law; at least, that is the theory. I also note that this was once a core Republican principle.

Indeed, the Republican party was once a single-issue party with that as its sole plank.

 

[drankin]

I don't support homosexual marriage for the same reason I don't support heterosexual marriage: it's not the government's place.



Indeed, the Republican party was once a single-issue party with that as its sole plank.

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.

 

[skeptic2]

(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.