We’ll make a deal: we’ll stop desecrating the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance when they stop desecrating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Star Trek pledge of allegiance gets kid suspended: “Cory Doctorow:
A young Star Trek fan was suspended from school for reciting his own version of the Pledge of Allegiance, in which he pledged to the United Federation of Planets. His mom has posted the hilarious story:‘So, anyway. What did he do?’ I picked at the hem of my sweatshirt, looked just to the right of her face. I couldn’t meet her eyes. I felt nervous. I felt underdressed. I wondered where 8 was.
So she told me what he did. And as she told me, I started to laugh. I didn’t laugh a little, either, but I belly-laughed and grabbed my stomach. My son stood with his class this morning, put small right hand over heart, faced the American flag, and recited his own personal pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.
‘Mrs. Jaworski. This isn’t humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom. I am ashamed of your son’s behavior, and I hope you are, too.’
Link“
(Via Boing Boing.)
• 
“Well, at least SOMEONE here is paying attention!”
“‘Tis better to remain a fool, then to risk becoming wise. For the wise know they are fools, while the fools can bask in the wonderful delusion of being wise”
“Who’s more foolish … the fool, or the one that follows him?” –Ancient Jedi saying
“It’s a foolie!” –Ancient Star Trek saying
“Who’s more foolish … the fool, or the one that follows him?” –Ancient Jedi saying”
Explains nicely why no one is following you.
Johnathan: I was assuming that there would be some sort of equivalent for almost all religions. You can’t really have a successful business without a mission statement, can you?
Details please? Just curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13938&c=252
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
I know it’s off topic, but the Canadian Parliament just minutes ago passed the infamous bill C-38, that which nationalizes the legalization of Same-Sex marriage ( Eight provinces and one territory had already ratified it through the courts).
Huzzah for Canada. No really, good for them. Good to see that somebody isn’t trying to write hate and intolerance into law.
-Rex Hondo-
Actually, Jeers to Canada, who has thrown over free speech and freedom of religion. With that single act they have forever separated themselves from any familial connection to the US.
Not everything is about America. Don’t you think the Canadians may have wanted to do something FOR their country as opposed to AGAINST us? An how have they thrown over free speech or freedom of religion? (Which isn’t in their bill of rights, it’s in ours, by the way.) You don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, the law is not forcing you. It also doesn’t seem to say anything about taking away your right to say you don’t like the new law.
Canada is following the lead of other enlightened countries that are not allowing Christianity to dictate their laws. I agree completely with Rex. It’s nice to see a positve, rather than negative law for once.
It’s actually written DIRECTLY into the bill that no religious institution or official will receive benefits or be penalized for refusing or not refusing to perform marriages that don’t conform to their own consciences or religious beliefs, as has always been their right. I don’t have a clue what you mean by free speech, unless you refer to the few instances in which people, including religious officials, have been brought in front of a human rights tribunal for speaking out against the bill. These, I admit, are a slap in the face to free speech, and I fully expect the cases to be thrown out, as most are still pending.
Oh, and freedom of religion IS in our bill of rights. Part 1 (c). Right above part 1 (d), freedom of speech.
One last thing, if we “have forever separated themselves from any familial connection to the US.”, I figured it’d have been when Chretien told Bush to go to hëll when it came to the Iraq War, or when Martin (after dithering over it) decided not to throw good money after Bush’s bad money in regard to the non-functioning ballistic missile defense. Or when you guys violated international trade law in regards to softwood lumber imports from Canada. Or when you closed your borders to our beef, because of a single case of Mad Cow, which, by the way, has been discovered in US cattle now. Surely it’s not when we passed a law that has no effect on America whatsoever. By the way, in case you hadn’t noticed, Massachusettes has same-sex marriage, and California is running to catch up.
How does same sex marriage “over throw” freedom of religion and speech? Good on you, Canada. Nice to have at least one country in North America that doesn’t have its head up its ášš.
Huzzah for Canada. No really, good for them. Good to see that somebody isn’t trying to write hate and intolerance into law.
I agree with the “good for Canada” idea. A bill democratically passed through the ordinary political process is precisely how major changes to domestic relations laws should come about. Here, of course, a minority is effectively forcing such a major change down the throats of the rest of the country without so much as a “by your leave” from a single state legislature. (Massachusetts of course enacted a gay marriage law… because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made them.) That’s why I bridle at the characterization of “trying to write hate and intolerance into law.” A marriage amendment is the only way to fix an essentially undemocratic fait accompli; certain activists brought this one on themselves.
Liam,
Oh, and freedom of religion IS in our bill of rights. Part 1 (c). Right above part 1 (d), freedom of speech.
Thank-you for the clarification. I’m afraid I’m not conversant with Canada’s laws. That was no excuse for automatically assuming Robbnn was referencing the US’s Bill of Rights.
David,
Why is it democratic in Canada, but “forced down our throats” here? Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys.
A marriage amendment is the only way to fix an essentially undemocratic fait accompli;
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the history of our country, more change has been brought by the minority than majority.
End of slavery? Women’s right to vote? Civil rights?
Hëll, if you look at lobbyist groups these days, you can see the that a minority (corporate America) has Congress and this country by the balls. And they’re twisting as much as possible.
Canada passed a “hate speech” law that prevents anyone from speaking out against homosexuality. Pastors who just read the Biblical passages against homosexuality without adding anything to the text are breaking the law and subject to imprisonment. If they dare say it’s a sin, they are lawbreakers.
I don’t encourage anyone to rant and rave against homosexuality, but if you can’t have a reasoned discussion about it without fearing the police, then your country has stepped over the line.
The incidents you stated don’t sever the connection, it validates it. Disagree with us, fine, but by stepping away from the ideals of free speech and religion – in your constitution or not – then you’ve stepped away from the great experiment.
I mean, really, a law passed when opposing the legislation is illegal… big win there…
“Here, of course, a minority is effectively forcing such a major change down the throats of the rest of the country without so much as a “by your leave” from a single state legislature”
I think you’ll find that throughout history, most of the positive changes that have occurred began with the minority, or even one person. Majority-held ideas are often lousy ones, stuck in backward thinking and an intolerant status quo.
The arguments against gays in the military are the exact same arguments that were presented against blacks in the military. The prejudice gays encounter against marriage are the same prejudices encountered by blacks who wanted to marry whites, Catholics who wanted to marry Jews, and so on.
Society isn’t bettered by the backward-thinking majority. It’s bettered by the forward-thinking minority against the will of the majority until the majority gets its head out of its ášš and moves on to something else to bìŧçh about.
There’s always a good reason not to change something: Fear. And there’s always a good reason TO change something: Lack of fear.
I’ll side with the latter, thanks.
PAD
If they dare say it’s a sin, they are lawbreakers.
I get the feeling you’ve completely misinterpreted this.
There are alot of sins.
But speaking out against them generally doesn’t get you into trouble unless you’re sitting there saying “we need to make gays pay for being gays”… you know, threats and that sort of thing.
The problem is, and I’m sure this is the case more so in the US than Canada, that of complete and utter intolerance toward gays and lesbians.
The incidents you stated don’t sever the connection, it validates it.
Gee, and people piss on me when I say America has gone to the šhìŧŧër.
Apparently it’s ok as long as we’re talking about another country…
Robbnn,
Is your issue with the “Hate Speech” bill? Or the Same-sex marriage bill? I can agree with a negative stance on the latter, as I’m all for free speech. But WAIT! Your objections are mostly due to the inability of religious officials to denounce homosexuality. Let’s take a look at a description of the bill:
Status of bill C-250:
The bill was given royal assent by the Queen’s representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation has now joined four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their “color, race, religion or ethnic origin.” 1 However, a “not withstanding” clause allows hate speech if it is religiously motivated.
So, it looks like the bill, like the Same-Sex marriage bill, was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to protect religious instituions. Well, snap. It looks like your point fails.
Oh, and let’s look at Hate crimes in General as they are regarded in Canada:
Who can be convicted under Section 319?
Section 318 deals with genocide. Section 319 deals with hate speech:
1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.
2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:
The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, “in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.” This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group “for the purpose of removal” of that hatred.
If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General’s consent is required before charges can be laid.. 1
In this section of the Code, the term “statements” includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.
The Code permits up to two years in prison for anyone convicted of a hate crime. It permits the government to confiscate any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech.
Therefore, when it comes to freedom of religion, I don’t think there’s a single argument that can be made stating that this legislation doesn’t conserve it.
Liam,
If you’re correct, then my point fails. Which really bites, being in public and all. I’ve heard of some differing accounts, but annocdotal evidence often isn’t. I don’t care that much about the marriage law, just that speaking against it is against the law.
Craig,
How does saying Canada can disagree with us without severing our “cousin” connection equate to pìššìņg on Canada? I’m not terribly thrilled with Canada’s socialistic leanings, and their graphic design seems to lag behind the rest of the world by about 20 years, but their landscaping is terrific (though their public restrooms are the pits) and some of the best summers I’ve had were on the beaches of South West Canada. I’m bugged by their government, but not by their people.
Liam, are those restatements of Canadian law, or actual text from the bills?
If it’s the latter, then the US needs to send it’s legislative drafters up north for some learnin’. Those are the most plain-written and easy to understand laws I’ve ever seen…with examples and everything.
Heck, even if it’s a restatement, it’s more plainly written that most American legal texts.
How does saying Canada can disagree with us without severing our “cousin” connection equate to pìššìņg on Canada?
You’re complaining about Canada’s laws in a manner that makes it sound like they have brain damage.
You say that they don’t know what free speech is. They seem to know a helluva lot more about it than we do.
But then, your arguments about the laws in question appear to have been flawed anyways.
Actually, they were restatements. However, the actual criminal code documents are just as clearly written and can be found here:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?documents/Canadian/criminal-code.319
Also, for those who want to see the actual bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act) in PDF, it can be found here.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38_1.PDF
The actual text of the act, excluding the preamble and consequential amendments, is merely 4 statements:
1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the history of our country, more change has been brought by the minority than majority.
Ah, but has it been GOOD change? I’d just note that, this being a democratic republic, no change is permanent without the consent (albeit grudging) of the majority.
End of slavery? Women’s right to vote? Civil rights?
All of which were brought about by the majority through the ordinary democratic process. End of slavery? Thirteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress and passed by three-quarters of the states. Women’s right to vote? Nineteenth Amendment, ratified according to the Constitution. Civil rights? Fourteenth Amendment, ratified according to the Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. All instances of the majority doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. If these are your examples, I’m glad to know you’ve come around to my line of thinking.
Karen askeed, Why is it democratic in Canada, but “forced down our throats” here? Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys.
It’s democratic in Canada and undemocratic here because of the way it came about. In Canada, Parliament passed a law defining a domestic relationship. That’s precisely what legislatures are supposed to do in a democracy: legislate and answer to the voting public in the next election, with the understanding that the voting public can replace legislators who overstep their bounds. Here, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-3 vote, imposed a new definition of marriage on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By operation of the Comity Clause of the US Constitution, I firmly believe that marriages entered into in Massachusetts are valid if gay partners relocate anywhere in the United States. (I can go on a tangent about why I think the Defense of Marriage Act is, um, “constitutionally suspect” if you like, but that’s really a different discussion.) Not one single legislature has ever approved gay marriage, except Massachusetts under protest and under court order (recall that Mass. tried to duck the issue by creating civil unions, and the SJC said that was insufficient). To the contrary, many states have expressly declared that gay marriage is against public policy in their jurisdictions. How anyone can interpret an instance of four people imposing their will over the objection of every legislature to consider the issue as anything but undemocratic, I do not know.
This is a particularly bad abuse because the underlying problem was so avoidable for two reasons. First, and less importantly, is that the SJC opinion was fairly bad. I know virtually nothing about Massachusetts law, which makes me a good person to judge the opinion. An opinion should not merely give the answer to people sufficiently familiar with the law that they basically already know the answer anyway. A good court opinion is like a formal, logical proof. It states the premises– the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and the statutes and legal doctrines in the jurisdiction– and flows out from those premises, to explain why a certain conclusion is the most logical application of the law. Viewed purely as an exercise in legal reasoning, I thought the dissent had the better of the argument in that case. When a bad argument wins a majority in an appellate court, it begs the question: was it a four-person brain fart, or was it a result-oriented exercise in power? If the latter, it’s completely illegitimate whether you’re in favor of gay marriage or not.
Your own statement, “Many of us believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and privileges the rest of humanity enjoys” is a moral judgment, not a legal judgment. A proper legal opinion should never use the word “should” with regard to a person’s rights. Determining what should or should not be is the province of the political branches. The courts should deal with what is rather than what should be. X IS the law, because Y IS what the legislature said, or what preexisting legal doctrine declared, or is the logical extension of preexisting law, and X follows logically from Y. “Should” should never enter into the opinions of the judiciary. I believe this is true whether or not I happen to agree with any given judge about what rights or laws should be. I am pro-choice; I believe that governmental intrusion into childbearing is worse than the moral issues raised by abortion, and I’m not even sure it’s a close call. That said, Roe v Wade is an appallingly bad example of the abuse of judicial power, a poorly argued legal discussion, and generally an opinion to which Blackmun should have been embarrased to affix his name. I say that even though, if I were dictator and called upon to craft an abortion regulation, I’d impose a rule very much like that issued in Roe. The fact that it was a very good political settlement doesn’t change the rather more important fact that it was a political settlement the Court had no business imposing on a democracy.
Which brings us to the second, more fundamental problem: why is this issue being decided by the courts at all? There is something called the “political questions doctrine,” also called “non-justiciable questions.” The “political question” doctrine simply states that some issues are better left to the political branches, which are directly responsible to the people through elections. It’s not cases in which the courts feel they can’t act, but cases in which they elect to exercise restraint. This is a good thing, because if the political branches make an error the error can be fixed by veto, or veto override, or if all else fails in the next election. If the Supreme Court does something unpopular in a constitutional decision, either you have to convince one or more justices that they were wrong (unlikely) or pass an amendment to the Constitution (less likely). For all practical purposes, Supreme Court constitutional decisions are unreviewable, and for that reason the Court prefers to tread lightly, often to the point of being chicken and ducking issues wherever they can, like with the Pledge of Allegiance case. When they can’t duck the issue entirely, they can resort to a quite valid “political question” explanation for not resolving the issue themselves. Fun cases include:
Coleman v. Miller 307 US 433 (1939) (Marbury v Madison notwithstanding, whether an amendment has been ratified is a political question)
United States v. Sisson 294 F.Supp. 511 and 515 (Mass. 1968) Judgment affirmed 399 U.S. 267 (1970) (constitutionality of conscription in an undeclared war is a political question)
Crockett v. Reagan 720 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (legality of US El Salvador operations under the War Powers Act is a political question)
Goldwater v Carter 444 US 996 (1979) (legality of the War Powers Act itself is a political question. “The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse.” )
See http://www.censurethefive.org/section4.html for an entire litany of cases where the Court has found things non-justiciable, listed by a bunch of leftists who clearly think that the Court should have held Bush v. Gore non-justiciable, too. I would like to note that, like the alleged right to marry members of the same sex, US v Sisson was an individual rights case, so it’s not as though this is a trick limited to separation of powers or federalism issues.
Judicial lawmaking has been under constant criticism in academia from both the right and the left for years in books with happy titles like Democracy by Decree, Democracy and Distrust, and The End of Democracy. Criticism of “activist judges” is quite possibly the most highbrow position Bush has ever taken.
I think you’ll find that throughout history, most of the positive changes that have occurred began with the minority, or even one person. Majority-held ideas are often lousy ones, stuck in backward thinking and an intolerant status quo.
Often, yes, but that’s irrelevant. In a democracy, the structure of the law is the majority’s decision to make, even if that decision is the wrong one. In any democracy worth having, individuals have rights even against the majority– “all mankind minus one” in John Stuart Mill’s phrase– but the decision of what rights to recognize is itself a decision that society must make as a whole, not one to be imposed by not even a minority, but a select few in black robes. We do not have philosopher kings in this country, and even when the Supreme Court makes radical changes, it does so based on a power grant in the Constitution– for example desegregating schools based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was democratically ratified. If their analysis of the law was valid– which it clearly was in Brown v Board of Education, then the Court is acting as an agent of democracy, not as its superior. Sometimes it may be a subtle distinction, but it’s a crucial one.
I actually have no strong preference whether gay marriage becomes recognized in the United States or not. I have a very strong preference on the issue of HOW that recognition comes about.
Here, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-3 vote, imposed a new definition of marriage on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
If i’m not mistaken, the basis of the ruling is that the Mass. state Constitution says no person or group is to be discriminated against by the state. Since the no gay marriage law discriminated against a specific group, it was ruled unconstitutional.
If so, then the judges did their job, which is to uphold the state constitution. As for ordering the legislature to change the law, it seems to me they were telling the legislature to reverse an illegal law.
There are two problems with the theory that the SJC was just doing its job interpreting the state constitution. One is that they did it poorly. The test is not whether the government discriminates against its citizens; governments do that all the time. In fact they’re supposed to. Gun control laws discriminate against convicts, and marriage laws discriminate against consanguinity. The legal test for whether discrimination nased on sexual orientation is legal is whether it meets “rational basis” scrutiny– simply that a law is aimed at a legitimate governmental purpose, and is designed to help achieve that interest. The court’s opinion stated that the Commonwealth’s marriage laws did not meet that test. The problem is that they dismissed the Commonwealth’s explanation out of hand, which is not how it’s supposed to work.
The second problem is the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Loving v Virginia did not redefine marriage in a fundamental way; it obliterated a law that was frankly designed to maintain white supremacy. Striking that down was a perfectly valid application of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the SJC quite blatantly substituted its own judgment for that of the political branches, and when the legislature proposed a solution that actually solved the problems identified by the court majority, the SJC overturned that as well. The SJC not merely overstepped its bounds, it did so in a case it should have declared non-justiciable to begin with.
In your opinion.
On a related note (not to the ORIGINAL thread, but to the new subject), Spain just legalized gay marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8413036/
Also worth noting in the article, Canada’s gay marriage bill passed the House of Commons, but still has to make it past their Senate. It isn’t a law YET…
-Rex Hondo-
David, I’ve not read the SJC opinion…I’ll try to remember to do that over lunch today…but how would you say that action compares to striking down a law intended to maintain white supremacy? The analogy I’ve seen made is that the same thinking behind laws supporting racial superiority can be applied to what you could call heterosexual superiority. Although the SJC may have done a poor job of articulating this link, is this something that could be read into the basis for the decision?
“Canada’s gay marriage bill passed the House of Commons, but still has to make it past their Senate. “
The Senate in Canada isn’t elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister and the Governer General. It’s really nothing more than a jobs program for old politicians, completely unlike the Senate in the US. The only power the senate has is to delay bills or send them back to the house of Commons, and they RARELY exercise it. Even if they did, it would constitute an impasse between Parliament and the Senate. In this case, the Prime Minister is allowed to appoint a bunch of new Senators to pass the bill. (PM Brian Mulrouney did this when the mostly Trudeau-appointed Senate rejected NAFTA).
Technically, the Governer General has to sign the bill as well.
Oh, and with the current political climate in Canada, if the Senate were to kick this bill back to parliament, they’d be signing their own death warrants, as the first bill out of the fall session of Parliament would be for Senate reform. Which I’m all for Senate reform, I just don’t want to see this bill die because of it. Also, the governing Liberals control 63 of the 105 senate seats, and the NDP, Progressive Conservative and Independants control another 11. Since all of these Senators are considered allies of the Liberal government, it’s really a non-issue.
How anyone can interpret an instance of four people imposing their will over the objection of every legislature to consider the issue as anything but undemocratic, I do not know.
Well, I guess this means any and every Supreme Court decision can be considered undemocratic then. Because, by your logic, 9 people (and as few as five, due to simple majority) are imposing their will upon the rest of us?
Ok, it’s wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody? Seriously, with separation of church and state, a civil union would be the preferred LEGAL form of a contract between two people concerning issues about their property ownership, power of attorney in case of health issues, custody of children, and other legally recognized rights and priveleges. Marriage, on the other hand, would be granted by whatever religious/spiritual/internet/las vegas authority you and your partner preferred that was willing to recognize your spiritual/loving/kinky sex-related bond. This wouldn’t attack any religion’s ability to marry whoever they wanted; heck, in fact it’d allow a religion to say “yeah, sorry, we don’t recognize that kind of marriage” because it’s not a legally binding document as such. Is there a LEGAL argument for keeping any form of religious aspect as part of existing marriage law? If something like this went into effect, am I misunderstanding how different religions would be able to act on it? As a bachelor who’s never been married, I admit my interpretation of existing marriage law is limited, so if I’m just totally wrong, please be civil in your corrections, ok?
Makes sense to me, Jason.
Liam, just wondering: would Canadian law allow a group of people opposed to homosexual union to protest outside of a church? Could one fellow share his negative views of homosexuality with a homosexual and not be worried about legal repercussions?
For me, I think homosexuality is wrong so I don’t engage in it. Because I think it’s wrong, I couldn’t vote for a gay union thing, because I also think divorce is normally wrong, so it’s a catch 22 to approve of a union you would hope – for their sake – was dissolved. At the same time, if it’s just a benefits package, why should it only involve sexually active people? Why can’t my insurance cover everyone in my household, including the single mom and daughter we are currently boarding?
Marriage as defined by our society seems removed from what our society has evolved into. Marriage was and is to protect children from the sole breadwinner obsconding with their future. Why that should be extended to a gay couple, I’m not sure.
Ok, it’s wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody?
Because not all of us work on the assumption that marriage is the sole province of religion.
Could you expand on that, Craig? Forgive me, but I’m not clear on what you’re going after.
Could you expand on that, Craig? Forgive me, but I’m not clear on what you’re going after.
Some of the arguments for/against civil unions leave the term ‘marriage’ to religion on varying levels.
That, at worse, we should have ‘civil unions’ for gays – an “equal but not equal” option.
Or that only churches should be able to say somebody is married, everybody else gets a civil union.
Some go so far as to act as though marriage originated with the Judeo-Christian religion, when that is not the case.
Frankly, I see the term ‘civil union’ under the “equal but not equal” description, that the only reason people consider it is to make gays happy, but it can still be considered a second-rate marriage.
I was married in a civil ceremony – no church involved – so I don’t see why the term marriage to be reserved in any, way, shape or form to any particular group, and that the term ‘civil union’ is unneccessary.
“Liam, just wondering: would Canadian law allow a group of people opposed to homosexual union to protest outside of a church? Could one fellow share his negative views of homosexuality with a homosexual and not be worried about legal repercussions?”
Yes, both of those things would be legal. In fact, both of them have been done, MANY times.
“Ok, it’s wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody? Seriously, with separation of church and state, a civil union would be the preferred LEGAL form of a contract between two people concerning issues about their property ownership, power of attorney in case of health issues, custody of children, and other legally recognized rights and priveleges.”
It’s not as wacky as you think: Premier (equivalent of Governer) Ralph Klein of Alberta is proposing exactly that, mostly because Alberta is the most socially conservative of the provinces and is one of the few places where gay marriage hadn’t already been granted by the courts. Also, one of my best friends, who happens to be engaged to another man, floated the exact same thing over a year ago.
Ah, ok, I understand where you’re coming from Craig, and I would agree that under the current system, civil unions are a cheap ploy to give homosexuals the legal rights without addressing the broader problem of the moralities being injected into the legal system. I was suggesting something different, or at least intended to, when I said Marriage, on the other hand, would be granted by whatever religious/spiritual/internet/las vegas authority you and your partner preferred that was willing to recognize your spiritual/loving/kinky sex-related bond. This wouldn’t attack any religion’s ability to marry whoever they wanted; heck, in fact it’d allow a religion to say “yeah, sorry, we don’t recognize that kind of marriage” because it’s not a legally binding document as such. While I called out the status religions would have in particular, I didn’t mean to exclude the fact that there could then be any number of various authorities, religious or nonreligious, that could be used to recognize a marriage. In effect, what I was going after was that without being written down in law anymore, the idea of marriage as a relationship between people would no longer be legislated and/or somehow defined by government. I hope I clarified what I was going after.
Jason, technically, I think most jurisdictions already have legel civil unions…they call them marraige, and some of them bylaw limit them to unions between one man and one woman. Some are worded to include 2 people.
But there’s a difference between a religious marraige and a civil marraige. If you go ahead with the religious marraige ceremony, you’re still not legally married, in most states, until you get your civil marraige license. There are actually 2 parallel “institutions” of marraige, a religious one, and a civil one. And only the civil one carries with it the rights of inheritance, medical proxy, etc.
This is why I’ve said for a while now that we should do away with all civil marraiges, and just use a Civil Union License. Let marraige solely be a religious thing.
So it’s kinda sorta there in some places. So what we’re really talking about is defining and clarifying the separation between legal rights and recognitions and moral philosophies, then.
“Well, I guess this means any and every Supreme Court decision can be considered undemocratic then. Because, by your logic, 9 people (and as few as five, due to simple majority) are imposing their will upon the rest of us?”
Except that when the Supremes rule, it’s generally on whether or not a specific law or action is permissible under the Constitution of the United States. Generally, they’re not telling Congress to go and draft a new law, to fit their specifications – they’re just telling Congress (or whomever) that the law as passed can’t stand, and must be struck down. If the legislators want to try again at that point, it’s completely up to them.
The SJC of Massachusetts was telling the state legislature exactly how to change the existing law to fit their ruling, which was stepping a tad beyond their role as the judicial branch of the state…
Incidentally, as regards the religious/civil marriage debate, it may be worth noting that until the 13th Century, the Church declined to be involved in creating marriages. Once you had a priest solemnize your marriage, by Church rules, you were stuck with it, but since marriages were performed by civil authority, if you declined religious certification, you still got the legal benefits – you just had to worry about the parish priest dropping by every now and again to remind you that you were going to Hëll (not that big a deal, when by Church doctrine, it seems like just about everybody is going to Hëll…). Perhaps we should return to that – civil authorities can marry whomever, and if you want the religious solemnization on top of that, you can go jump through your particular faith’s hoops. That way, sects that think dark skin is the “mark of Ham” can ignore my marriage… 🙂
Heh. I was looking forward to being a little wacky…
Ok, it’s wacky thought time, but why not differentiate civil unions and marriages for everybody?
Because seperate but equal doesn’t work. Also, under the ‘marriage amendment’, those civil unions woul;d be null & void.
Plus anything short of driving gays back into the closest won’t satisfy the extreme right that controls the government and half the media today.
For these separate but equal arguments, I’m talking about separating the legal and moral issue, not who can get what. Everybody gets what and/or what, no restrictions. One what is a legal contract, the other what is an expression of their feelings about their relationship. Do you want the government to really have legal input into the appropriateness of your feelings towards another?