Same sex marriage approved by the House of Commons

[Shayne]

 While not exactly new news, i find it very suprising that the bill actually passed.

Thoughts, feelings, etc? (try not to flame, its a pretty high-profile-topic)

[Darren Dirt]

 Hey didn't Trudeau say something a few decades about staying out of bedrooms...

Meh.

C:>CALL SILLY_BRAIN_DUMP.BAT

I walk into the flower shop and walk up to where they sell the roses.
"(Pointing) Hey I'd like to buy that cheeseburger" "You mean this rose?" "Yes, but I think it's a cheeseburger. Why don't you call it a cheeseburger too?" "Because it's not a cheeseburger, it's a rose." "Are you refusing me my right to call this a cheeseburger?" "Well, a rose can not be a cheeseburger just because you want to label it as such." "Freedom of speech! Freedom of conscience! I'm calling the Human Right Commi..." "No, wait, just... okay fine call it a cheeseburger if you want. But that doesn't make it edible, you know, it's still a rose... Any idiot would recognize that-" "But I *want* to eat this cheeseburger! What's the point of calling this a cheeseburger if others try stopping me from eating it? I might as well stop calling it a cheeseburger... I'll call it a hammer instead. I'd like a dozen hammers, please." "Sir, please get the hell out of my flower shop."

[Mr. Analog]

 I think it's a really bad idea that ultimately the Government will overturn. Somewhat  because it treads on many religious beliefs and will churn and churn and churn in the media but mainly because of taxable benefits that go along with marridge.

Call me crazy but I don't want my hard earned tax dollars being put into taxable marridge benefits if no new Canadians come out of it.

[Ustauk]

 I don't really care, either way.  If two people who love each other want to affirm a life long commitment, that's none of my business.  As to the children argument, my aunt got married at the age of fifthy last year, and there's zero chance of her having children at this point.  By that definition, she and her husband and those like her who do not wish to have children should have no benefits from being married and a gay or lesbian couple who adopt a child should receive the governmental benefits of a marriage.

[Ustauk]

 Just talking to a married co-worker, and he said there's not that many benefits to actual marriage.  You can swap deductions if one spouse makes more then another, but things like the GST rebate have to be shared between both spouses.  Most of the benefits that your normally associate with marriage actually only accrue when you have a child.

Anyways, it sounds like King Ralph (our premier, Ralph Klein, roughly equivalent to a state governor) wants to get out of the marriage business entirely.  Instead, the province would only recognize civil unions.  I guess that's his way to say a gay marriage was never sanctioned by the Alberta government.

[Mr. Analog]

 Civil unions I have no problem with, my problem is if my church were to refuese a gay marriadge (because of beliefs) they would be breaking the law (and other similar cases).

[Ustauk]

 

Civil unions I have no problem with, my problem is if my church were to refuese a gay marriadge (because of beliefs) they would be breaking the law (and other similar cases).

From wikipedia

Section 1 simply specifies the bill's short title. Sections 2-4 form the key provisions of the bill, and read in full as follows:

Marriage - certain aspects of capacity
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials
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.
Marriage not void or voidable
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

I believe section three of the bill would allow a church board to refuse the performance of a gay wedding on the premises of the church.  This is simply stating what is already unofficially recognized, ie if you're divorced you can't get married in a Catholic church.  This section was put in specifically to outline the Charter's freedom of religion provisions in direct application to marriage.  The committe reviewing the bill went on to further clarify this.

At the committee stage, the bill was amended with addition of section 3.1:

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1. For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I agree with you, if the government forced a church to allow the performance of gay marriages within their premises, that would be wrong.  I think the wording of the bill, coupled with the freedom of religion provisions should be strong enough to stand up to any challenge, and I believe the Supreme Court agreed when they reviewed the bill.

[Mr. Analog]

 Good, though, I still think they should get no taxable benefits...

[Shayne]

 

Good, though, I still think they should get no taxable benefits...

As long as "traditional" unions get none as well.

I really dont care.  However if its going to be introduced (and it probably should be), then at least make it even across the board.

After reading over the whole Ralph Klien stance, i really think that, the civil union way, is the way to go.  I dont belive in religion, can i still be married?  not really, its more of a civil union anyways.  At least in a traditional sense.

[Thorin]

 I've done the math.  If two people get married and have to declare their income combined, the benefits in fact *decline*.  As long as you're claiming single living with a roommate, you will together bring in higher benefits than if you claim common-law.

Specifically, the benefits to consider are:
* Alberta Health Care Subsidy
* GST Credit
* Non-Refundable Tax Credit: Spousal Amount (Federal and Provincial)

The only time that these are advantageous is when one of you is not working.  If you're claiming single, then the one not working can collect either EI or Welfare (depending on situation).  Both of these will provide more money than the above-three benefits will bring in.

Damn, now I want to spreadsheet it and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt!  The only time married couples get ahead of singles is when they have kids, and believe you me, we're not really ahead because we have so much more stuff we have to pay for.

[Darren Dirt]

Civil unions I have no problem with, my problem is if my church were to refuese a gay marriadge (because of beliefs) they would be breaking the law (and other similar cases).

Those advocates who actually respond to statements and queries with facts instead of irrational emotionalism have acknowledged that the demand for gay marriage is not for financial reasons (because the "tax advantage" of "real marriage" vs. "commonlaw marriage" = nill) but for the public recognition (i.e. government "grants" permission for something and PRESTO! it somehow magically has "credibility" in the public eye... meh.)

Oh, and apparently some have claimed that there are some restrictions in company benefits, insurance policies, hospital visitors, etc. without RM, but that might be exaggerated by the media (i.e. the degree for which there is actually a difference RM vs. CLM) simply for entertainment purposes. "IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS" type of thing.  <_<  

[Darren Dirt]

 

From wikipedia

Section 1 simply specifies the bill's short title. Sections 2-4 form the key provisions of the bill, and read in full as follows:

Marriage - certain aspects of capacity
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials
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.
Marriage not void or voidable
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

I believe section three of the bill would allow a church board to refuse the performance of a gay wedding on the premises of the church.  This is simply stating what is already unofficially recognized, ie if you're divorced you can't get married in a Catholic church.  This section was put in specifically to outline the Charter's freedom of religion provisions in direct application to marriage.  The committe reviewing the bill went on to further clarify this.

At the committee stage, the bill was amended with addition of section 3.1:

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1. For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I agree with you, if the government forced a church to allow the performance of gay marriages within their premises, that would be wrong.  I think the wording of the bill, coupled with the freedom of religion provisions should be strong enough to stand up to any challenge, and I believe the Supreme Court agreed when they reviewed the bill.

Maybe that's what I had heard recently, about how "Section 3" got modified sometime recently... But if I recall correctly some Conservative MPs were complaining that what the public was being told was being voted on was effectively an older "draft" ... and the passed version might actually be less flexible when it comes to that crazy thing called "freedom of conscience", especially for those who refuse to perform religious marraige ceremonies if there are fundamental differences in beliefs between the marryer and the marryee... To me it's like the common practice in America, often times the Congresscritters are given an early version of a bill to read, and at the last minute it is drastically modified but somehow rushed through without a new analysis by those voting on it.  :angry: