Gay marriage thread

It has finally come to pass in Canada. There are going to be some real happy men and women tonight!

Historic Commons vote paves way for same-sex marriage across Canada

at 21:06 on June 28, 2005, EST.
ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - It was fought in courtrooms, in legislatures, in street protests, and one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled Tuesday with a vote in Parliament.

The House of Commons voted to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Several Liberals marked the occasion by invoking the memory of their party's philosopher king, Pierre Trudeau.

It was the late Liberal prime minister who decriminalized homosexuality in 1969, and whose Charter of Rights and Freedoms became the legal cudgel that smashed the traditional definition of marriage.

Barely two years ago the Liberal government was still fighting same-sex couples in courts across the land.

It changed its tune amid an onslaught of legal verdicts in eight provinces that found traditional marriage laws violated the charter's guarantee of equality for all Canadians.

"(This) is about the Charter of Rights," Prime Minister Paul Martin said earlier Tuesday.

"We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights.

"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about."

Source[/color]

Here's some interesting background about the fight for same-sex marriage and homosexual rights. Hard to believe that here we are 40 years later.

INDEPTH: SAME-SEX RIGHTS
The Supreme Court and same-sex marriage

CBC News Online | June 29, 2005

Gay rights in Canada have come a long way since 1965. That year, Everett Klippert told police investigating a case of arson that he was homosexual and that he had been having sex with men for 24 years.

Klippert was charged with gross indecency and sentenced to three years in prison. While doing his time, he was interviewed by two psychiatrists who concluded that Klippert could be described as a dangerous sexual offender.

He was ordered jailed for life. Two years later, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the sentence.

In 1969, the federal government decriminalized homosexuality. Klippert would remain in prison until July 20, 1971.

Ten years later, Toronto would hold its first Gay Pride Day, an event that has become the second-largest annual celebration in North America of gay life.

As the 25th annual pride week wound up, Canadian politicians prepared to pass legislation that would change the definition of marriage to include the unions of same-sex couples. Most provinces had already moved to recognize same-sex marriage.

On June 17, 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced his intention to legalize same-sex unions. The draft legislation would also recognize the rights of religious groups to "sanctify marriage as they see fit." The decision meant the federal government would not appeal lower court rulings that same-sex couples had the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples.

The issue has caused an uproar among many church leaders and traditionalists, who argue the government does not have the right to redefine marriage.

But on Dec. 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa does have exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country - but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

The decision means that same-sex marriages performed in eight provinces and one territory are legal and must be recognized. Same-sex marriages are not performed in Alberta, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but the Nunavut government will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The fight may not be over - Alberta's justice minister responded to the Supreme Court decision by saying the province's marriage law, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, won't be changed.

On May 5, 2005, the government's same-sex marriage bill passed a second reading, moving it closer to becoming law.

June 28, 2005:
In the final stages of the vote, federal cabinet ministers in opposition to Bill C-38 are urged to reject it. MP Pat O'Brien, who left the Liberal party over the issue, says some Liberals in cabinet have voted in the past to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The now-Independent member believes they are being forced to vote in favour of same-sex unions or lose their cabinet posts.

The bill is expected to clear the House after a third and final reading in an evening vote. It will clear the Senate in late July, making Canada the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after Belgium and the Netherlands.

Source[/color]

Doing the total happy dance on this.

It's hard to believe now that people were put in jail (like the fellow in above article) for homosexual acts, and 3 years, too!

How the times change.....

Doesn't the United States get a little credit?

There are legal gay marriages here.

mmmm ok then
sure
you can have some credit

just don't try to buy anything big with it

Yes, but I believe it is only certain states? Don't know which ones, off the top of my head.

Canada is now list as the 3rd country to legalize same-sex marriage. Not just certain provinces.

Beth, do I pop the question to "M" now ?

Can I be your best girl?

Here is some info on the U.S. situation......
THE UNITED STATES
Many states have passed amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Congress has failed to approve a similar amendment to the US constitution.

President George W Bush has made clear that he supports such an amendment but said that individual states would still be able to make their own arrangements on unions - which offer couples some of the same rights as marriage.


In 2000, Vermont became the first US state to offer homosexuals the right to join in civil unions, giving them the same benefits as married couples on matters such as life insurance, health care and child custody.

In April 2005, Connecticut became the second US state to allow same-sex civil unions - and the first to do so without orders from a court. But it specifically defined marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

San Francisco started issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples in February 2004, after the new mayor defied state law and allowed gay weddings. The move was later annulled by the state Supreme Court. But in a victory for gay-rights advocates, in March 2005 a San Francisco judge ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licences for gay couples in May 2004. State legislators have proposed a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages, but would allow civil unions. If the proposal passes further legal hurdles, it will go to the voters in a referendum in autumn 2006.

In Oregon, officials in the Portland area began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, before an amendment to the state constitution banning such weddings was approved by voters in November. But Governor Ted Kulongoski said he would back a new law which would allow gay couples to form civil unions.

PROTECTING GAY MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS

By SETH J. BOOKEY
GAY CITY NEWS

After an historic ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in November 2003, same-sex marriage became a reality in that state the following May, more than a year ago.

Yet, opponents of gay marriage continue to press for a way to roll back that gain?-either through an amendment to convert the marriages into civil unions, in a ballot measure that could be voted on in November 2006, or through the outright elimination of same-sex marriage, with no alternative put in place, in a referendum that can happen no earlier than November 2008.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, the longest-serving openly gay member of Congress, is optimistic that gay marriage in his home state can be preserved.

At last Saturday's pro-marriage gathering in Maplewood, New Jersey, Frank told Gay City News that the efforts by some conservatives to convert gay marriages into civil unions via a 2006 amendment referendum is likely to fail, both because the anti-marriage caucus in the Massachusetts' Legislature lost seats since last November's election and because the gay community's staunchest opponents would rather eliminate gay marriage outright rather than replace it with civil unions.

Frank noted that two Democrats opposed to gay marriage were defeated in their re-election bids and another three retired. In order for the civil union amendment to get on the 2006 ballot, a majority vote of the state Legislature, sitting in joint session, is required before then. The first of the two required legislative votes, last year, just squeaked by.

But Frank made clear that right-wing opponents of gay marriage are really looking to 2008, in any event. The effort for a 2006 amendment, he said, "is probably going to lose. The right wing has decided to not fight for the amendment because it mandates civil unions and they hate that."

Frank noted that the harshly anti-gay Massachusetts Republican governor, Mitt Romney, has repudiated the 2006 amendment.

"If it comes up [in the Legislature], it will be voted down," Frank predicted.

Many conservatives are now focused instead on gathering petition signatures for an amendment that would only require 50 votes out of the 200-member state Legislature, in two successive sessions, to make it on to the 2008 ballot. The wording of that amendment would simply bar same-sex marriage, without providing gay and lesbian couples with any compensating benefits.

Frank also voiced optimism that this initiative would fail.

"It wouldn't get on the ballot until 2008, and by then, marriage will have been around for four years, and public opinion will have shifted some, and fears about gay marriage will have dissipated," Frank said.

When asked about the February decision by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to appeal a State Supreme Court ruling ordering the city clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Frank said, "It was outrageous. It's an example of how Republicans who say they mean well are still under great pressure to go against us."

Frank argued that the example of same-sex marriages taking place in New York City would have had a powerful impact on other courts considering marriage challenges elsewhere in the state.

"One of the things that helps us win is to have [marriage] in the first place," he said. "When same-sex marriage is in place, it shows."

While acknowledging that the city ruling would inevitably been affected by higher court rulings in New York, he said Bloomberg's appeal "deprives us of the chance to show how same-sex marriage has no negative impact on society. Had Bloomberg not appealed, New Yorkers would have been allowed to marry. The appeal would have come, but after there had been some marriages."

"Nothing defeats prejudice more decisively than the reality," he said.

Asked to speculate on how New York might arrive at the place where Massachusetts is already, Frank responded, "Exactly how you get there, I don't know."

Source[/color]

Catholics threaten over gay marriage law
OTTAWA | July 17, 2005 8:13:51 AM IST

Catholic leaders in Canada warn the church might not baptize the children of same-sex couples if the country legalizes gay marriage as expected next week.

The archbishop of Quebec, Cardinal Marc Oullet, told lawmakers in Ottawa last week the new law would not be compatible with church law, the Los Angeles Times reported.

If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, he said, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant.

The legislation, passed last month by Canada's House of Commons, redefines civil marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others -- not just between a man and a woman. It allows religious officials to refuse to perform marriages not in accordance with religious beliefs.

A Canadian Senate committee is expected to recommend Monday that the full Senate approve the legislation.

The church has chastised Catholic politicians in Canada, including Prime Minister Paul Martin, who is Catholic, for supporting the legislation.

Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands allow same-sex marriage.

Source[/color]

Are gay marriages recognized by immigration?

I'm happy for them, if marriage is what they want.