h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good post, Rumbleghost.

I guess the way I see it is that having your great arrangement going by the same name, having a similar religious blessing, and having a similar state sanction to the living and nearly lethal hell that my daughter and I had to put up with for ten years doesn't make your marriage any less wonderful nor mine any less nightmarish. Each marriage is unto itself: if it is not inherently blessed, no amount of history, tradition, religious or state sanction is going to make a peck of difference; if it is inherently doomed, no amount of history, tradition, religious or state sanction is going to make a peck of difference. Similarly, if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, or if Muslims or Hindus or Cree are allowed to marry, or if Jews or Mormans bring back polygamy, it is not going to make a peck of difference to either the hell I've been through or the heaven you have. I can't imagine how it could. The bandwagon isn't yours alone and it never has been. There are a lot of different bands playing and there are a lot of people that want on (not just gays and lesbians) who haven't been welcome.

Imagine if you had not been allowed to marry.


Imagine if I had not.

Well to put it another way, marriage is a formalising of a pair bond.
We've been forming pair bonds since before we were human, as far as anyone can tell. Whether the pair bond is between the same sex or opposites does not affect the bond. Allowing homosexuals to formalise their bonds in a manner of their choosing, just like heterosexuals will not cause the entire edifice to come crashing down about our ears.
Same sex marriage has been legal here in the Yukon for a while, I'm not really seeing any family breakdowns happening as a result.
Michael Palin commented reagrding "The Life Of Brian" that Christianity started with words about love and kindness but people have been killing each other for two thousand years because they can't agree on how the words were said.
Much religion, especially fundamentalist, appears to based in intolerance, this is just another example.
Speaking of which I hear a lot from the Christians about doom and gloom, what are the other major religions saying? What about the agnostics and atheists? If Ottawa does pass the law then they say the rights of Churches not to hold same sex weddings will be protected. If Ottawa will not force them to do so why should they be allowed to force secular organisations to withold marriage from homosexuals?
If anyone out there is prepared to argue that Churches are inerrant, I have one name for you.... Giordano Bruno.


Just to end on a lighter note a quote from BBC Radio's "The Navy Lark"...
"Marriage is an ancient institution and like most should have been condemned years ago as structurally unsound."

I have a wonderful marriage and family.
No one in my family has any religious affiliations at all. We are all either agnostic or athiests. But it is still a marriage.
What does religion have to do with marriage? To me and my family nothing. To you and yours something.
What does the government have to do with marriage? They do not bless our relationship or yours, only recognize that we are in a relationship that requires legal recognition.
There is no proposal by anyone to force any religious group to recognize a relationship as a marriage that does not meet the criteria of that religion. That not what is at issue at all.
If my non-religious relationship is recognized by the government as a marriage why not any other relationship? The government must not get into the buisness of judging the suitability of a relationship. That must be left up to the participants. If they wish to enter into a legal relationship then they can apply to have it recognized as such by the government.
If your religious group choses to refuse to recognize such a relationship then they must be free to do so and deny those in such relationships any benefits that might otherwise be availible and prevent their participation in any rites or services that are part of that religious organization.
Your religious beliefs must not have any effect on how I choose to live my life and how I choose to raise my children and this must be true of all citizens. That is a right we hold as basic and nessessary to a free society.
Naturally there is the reasonable limit on all citizens that their actions do not harm others. That is the only limit that the govenment has the right to impose on the relationships of it's citizens.
So if you want to insist that gay relationships are the equivilant of beastiality go ahead. It is a free country. And I hope people like you never get the ability to change that.

I notice that my post does not refer to Rumbleghost. That is who (whom?) I am addressing.

My step-father was from India. His passport identified his complexion as "Black" (never mind the irony that his ancestors were the original Aryan* peoples) and my mother is not "of colour".

Not too terribly long ago, in some places, their marriage would have been illegal.

Dad's family ostracized my mother and myself, and my younger brother and sister (Mom and my step-father's two children) because Dad married outside his race, religion and social rank.

Mom and Dad were married for just shy of 25 years when Dad died suddenly. Their marriage was based on love and respect, and no different from any other couples' marriage. Certainly, their relationship was no different than any same-sex couples I know. Some are religious, some not. Their aspirations are no different than those of my ex-husband and myself when we married, and no more or less dissillusioned than we were when ours failed.

The fact is, their hearts beat the same as those of any other couples. Why do some assume that they cannot possibly desire (or deserve) a committment solemnized and recognized in legal and/or religious ceremony? Why do some want to deny them the right to make such a committment when giving them the right will not diminish, one iota, the meaning of a single heterosexual marriage?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

For some marriage history:

http://www.uua.org/world/0399feat3.html
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriageancient/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/MNGNG57QMP1.DTL
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=marriagehistory29m&date=20040329 (registering is required)

... and if the people of Alberta wish to stand up as a majority and say "No, thank you, we'll keep the status quo here" then I respect their right to do that within the context of Canada.

Besides, I'm not intolerant of the gay relationship itself. It's the hi-jacking of the word which ticks me off. It then equates that relationship with what I believe marriage to be. Just because marriage was once given a legal context does not provide those legislators with the right to apply the term to non-marriages. I'd be just as happy if Paul Martin stood in front of the house of Commons and said "The Gov't of Canada has no business defining or recognizing marriages at all. We are not a church." and then simply wiped the books clean of the subject.

By the way, has anyone noticed that whenever a government raises the profile of issues like this one, some really nasty bits of legislation slip through while we're distracted? I wouldn't be shocked if we wake from this discussion to find that we're signed on with the missle defence whatzit.

If the majority of the people of Alberta stand up on this one, they'll say "go ahead and let same-sex marriage happen."

I resent you hijacking the word marriage and saying it only applies to what you say it applies to. In fact, the word applies to a whole lot of relationships other than the one you've described. I'll thank you very much to keep your hands off my word.

<>

I have another word: Galileo. The horrors that that poor man endured....Here was one of the greatest scientists the world has known, a man who opened the doors to knowledge of the cosmos, being put under house arrest and forbidden to publish for the rest of his life, all because the Vatican did not like the interpretation he placed upon the things he saw when he looked through his telescope. For an eye-opener, read "Galileo's Daughter."

If five to ten percent of the population is gay, then Massachusetts, with about six million people, should have about 300,000 to 600,000 gay people. If *all* of these formed couples and requested marriage license, there would be 150,000 to 300,000 gay couples in the state. That will probably not happen, as many gays (not unlike straight people) do not form permanent couples, and even some that do aren't going to marry. Many gay people hide their natures in various ways. Thus, the number of gay couples in Massachusetts (or anywhere alese, most likely) is probably not ever going to be very large.

But I could be wrong.

Do you really believe that? Alberta? The northernmost county in Texas?
Granted, most of my Albertan aquaintances are from Calgary and Lethbridge, but I am of the impression Edmonton wouldn't carry the weight required to swing a vote that way.

Yes, I do think that. But then, I'm in Alberta, so what would I know.

Plus, as Zoomer has pointed out, there is the constitutional fact that the government of Alberta can't say dick about it. Which is one of the most wonderful things about our constitution.

Because, after all, the government of Alberta is made up of a crew of loose cannons and nobody in the province, not even anyone sitting at the Cabinet table, knows what the hell to expect from them next.

I mean, when they brought in their unconstitutional marriage law a few years ago, the Justice Minister voted against it, for goodness sake, telling the Premier and the government that it was unconstitutional!

And, in any case, "marriage" means the union of two persons. That's the way it is. As I mentioned before, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to hijack the word by saying it means something else.

Let me try to put that more clearly:

'(1) Section 1 of the Proposed Act

15 Section 1 of the Proposed Act provides:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

(a)Determination of Legislative Competence

16 The dominant characteristic of s. 1 of the Proposed Act is apparent from its plain text: marriage as a civil institution. In saying that marriage for civil purposes is "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others", this section stipulates the threshold requirements of that institution: "two persons", regardless of gender, are legally capable of being married. In pith and substance, therefore, the section pertains to the capacity for marriage.

17 Turning to the assignment of this matter to an enumerated head of power, we note that legislative authority in respect of marriage is divided between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867 confers on Parliament competence in respect of "Marriage and Divorce" whereas s. 92(12) of that Act confers on the provinces competence in respect of "[t]he Solemnization of Marriage in the Province".

18 As early as 1912, this Court recognized that s. 91(26) confers on Parliament legislative competence in respect of the capacity to marry, whereas s. 92(12) confers authority on the provinces in respect of the performance of marriage once that capacity has been recognized: see In Re Marriage Laws, (1912), 46 S.C.R. 132. Subsequent decisions have upheld this interpretation. Thus, the capacity to marry in instances of consanguinity (Teagle v. Teagle, [1952] 3 D.L.R. 843 (B.C.S.C.)) or in view of prior marital relationships (Hellens v. Densmore, [1957] S.C.R. 768) falls within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

19 We have already concluded that, in pith and substance, s. 1 of the Proposed Act pertains to legal capacity for civil marriage. Prima facie, therefore, it falls within a subject matter allocated exclusively to Parliament (s. 91(26)).

(b)Objections: The Purported Scope of Section 91(26)

20 Some interveners nevertheless suggested that s. 91(26) cannot be interpreted as granting legislative competence over same-sex marriage to Parliament. Any law allowing same-sex marriage is alleged to exceed the bounds of s. 91(26) in two key respects: (i) the meaning of "marriage"is constitutionally fixed, necessarily incorporating an opposite-sex requirement; and (ii) any such law would trench upon subject matters clearly allocated to the provincial legislatures.

(i)The Meaning of Marriage is Not Constitutionally Fixed

21 Several interveners say that the Constitution Act, 1867 effectively entrenches the common law definition of "marriage" as it stood in 1867. That definition was most notably articulated in Hyde v. Hyde (1866), L.R. 1 P. & D. 130, at p. 133:

What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom? Its incidents may vary in different countries, but what are its essential elements and invariable features? If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must need (however varied in different countries in its minor incidents) have some pervading identity in a universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

22 The reference to "Christendom" is telling. Hyde spoke to a society of shared social values where marriage and religion were thought to be inseparable. This is no longer the case. Canada is a pluralistic society. Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution. The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life. In the 1920s, for example, a controversy arose as to whether women as well as men were capable of being considered "qualified persons" eligible for appointment to the Senate of Canada. Legal precedent stretching back to Roman Law was cited for the proposition that women had always been considered "unqualified" for public office, and it was argued that this common understanding in 1867 was incorporated in s. 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and should continue to govern Canadians in succeeding ages. Speaking for the Privy Council in Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.) (the "Persons" case), Lord Sankey L.C. said at p. 136:

Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board -- it is certainly not their desire -- to cut down the provisions of the [B.N.A.] Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation so that the Dominion to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, may be mistress in her own house, as the Provinces to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, are mistresses in theirs. [Emphasis added.]

This approach applies to the construction of the powers enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

23 A large and liberal, or progressive, interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada's constituting document. By way of progressive interpretation our Constitution succeeds in its ambitious enterprise, that of structuring the exercise of power by the organs of the state in times vastly different from those in which it was crafted. For instance, Parliament's legislative competence in respect of telephones was recognized on the basis of its authority over interprovincial "undertakings" in s. 92(10)(a) even though the telephone had yet to be invented in 1867: Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52 (P.C.). Likewise, Parliament is not limited to the range of criminal offences recognized by the law of England in 1867 in the exercise of its criminal law power in s. 91(27): Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310 (P.C.), at p. 324. Lord Sankey noted in the Persons case, at p. 135, that early English decisions are not a "secure foundation on which to build the interpretation" of our Constitution. We agree.

24 The arguments presented to this Court in favour of a departure from the "living tree" principle fall into three broad categories: (1) marriage is a pre-legal institution and thus cannot be fundamentally modified by law; (2) even a progressive interpretation of s. 91(26) cannot accommodate same-sex marriage since it falls outside the "natural limits" of that head of power, a corollary to this point being the objection that s. 15 of the Charter is being used to "amend" s. 91(26); and (3) in this instance, the intention of the framers of our Constitution should be determinative. As we shall see, none of these arguments persuade.

25 First, it is argued, the institution of marriage escapes legislative redefinition. Existing in its present basic form since time immemorial, it is not a legal construct, but rather a supra-legal construct subject to legal incidents. In the Persons case, Lord Sankey, writing for the Privy Council, dealt with this very type of argument, though in a different context. In addressing whether the fact that women never had occupied public office was relevant to whether they could be considered "persons" for the purposes of being eligible for appointment to the Senate, he said at p. 134:

The fact that no woman had served or has claimed to serve such an office is not of great weight when it is remembered that custom would have prevented the claim being made or the point being contested.

Customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged long after the reason for them has disappeared.

The appeal to history therefore in this particular matter is not conclusive.

Lord Sankey acknowledged, at p. 134, that "several centuries ago" it would have been understood that "persons" should refer only to men. Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today.

26 Second, some interveners emphasize that while Lord Sankey envisioned our Constitution as a "living tree" in the Persons case, he specified that it was "capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits" (p. 136). These natural limits, they submit, preclude same-sex marriage. As a corollary, some suggest that s. 1 of the Proposed Act would effectively amount to an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 by interpretation based on the values underlying s. 15(1) of the Charter.

27 The natural limits argument can succeed only if its proponents can identify an objective core of meaning which defines what is "natural" in relation to marriage. Absent this, the argument is merely tautological. The only objective core which the interveners before us agree is "natural" to marriage is that it is the voluntary union of two people to the exclusion of all others. Beyond this, views diverge. We are faced with competing opinions on what the natural limits of marriage may be.

28 Lord Sankey's reference to "natural limits" did not impose an obligation to determine, in the abstract and absolutely, the core meaning of constitutional terms. Consequently, it is not for the Court to determine, in the abstract, what the natural limits of marriage must be. Rather, the Court's role is to determine whether marriage as defined in the Proposed Act falls within the subject matter of s. 91(26).

29 In determining whether legislation falls within a particular head of power, a progressive interpretation of the head of power must be adopted. The competing submissions before us do not permit us to conclude that "marriage" in s. 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, read expansively, excludes same-sex marriage.

30 Third, it is submitted that the intention of the framers should be determinative in interpreting the scope of the heads of power enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 given the decision in R. v. Blais, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236, 2003 SCC 44. That case considered the interpretive question in relation to a particular constitutional agreement, as opposed to a head of power which must continually adapt to cover new realities. It is therefore distinguishable and does not apply here.'

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html

Or, in a nutshell, "happily married straight couples do not have an exclusive right to use the term 'marriage'. Case closed. Next case."

And a little reminder to those who don't really have a clue about Alberta politics: 53% of the population of the province voted against Ralph Klein's party. And one of the seats they lost was in the "red-neck conservative" deep south of the province. If there were a simple referendum on something that Ralph supported with a simple yes or no question, Ralph would very likely lose.

Okay, onto real issues instead of non-issues:

Here's a little something I should have found a while ago, from the wonderful Naomi Klein:

'How Canada Can Help Force Bush Out of Iraq'

http://www.nologo.org/newsite/detail.php?ID=436

Thanks Paul H for mentioning Galileo. I debated between him and Bruno for that comment.

Thanks anhaga for that post regarding marriage and the last link. Interesting.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/ will take you to a site where you can access the text of the Geneva Conventions.

I know I will be extremely busy next week so as I might not make it online....

I hope you all have an enjoyable midwinter festival.

Thanks.

I am runningt around like a crazy person trying to finish Christmas shopping before tomorrow night, when we are supposed to be hit by an Alberta Clipper (our weatherman's name for a nasty snowstorm ).

I have a hard time selecting gifts for some of my relatives. My sister and her husband own a gift store. How do you buy gifts for people who own a gift store?

My mother is a retired librarian. I know what she likes to read, but I never know what she has already read.