[sadgpokx]

[fajerdoksdsaaker]

Asher, you should consider the fact that it was banned before, only now it's just Extra-Banned with a capital B. This changes nothing. It's basically symbolic.

EDIT: Actually, it changes one thing. It prevents judges from legislating on the issue from the bench. So you could see this is as voters asserting their rights and the rights of the legislature against the judiciary.

[Anatolii]

Asher, you should consider the fact that it was banned before, only now it's just Extra-Banned with a capital B. This changes nothing. It's basically symbolic.

EDIT: Actually, it changes one thing. It prevents judges from legislating on the issue from the bench. So you could see this is as voters asserting their rights and the rights of the legislature against the judiciary.

It just proves that they're extra bigoted and extra scared.

"legislating from the bench" is doublespeak for "passing judgement based on current laws in ways that contradict popular opinion amongst rednecks". You're better than that, HC.

Any true freedom-loving American would support gay marriage. Anyone who doesn't can't claim to love freedom. It's as simple as that. You're legislating relationships between consenting adults. It's absurd on its face.

[Msrwbdas]

Yup. Free vote in the house of commons. So the people never had a say? Odd that.

[eljugadordepoquer]

It just proves that they're extra bigoted and extra scared.

"legislating from the bench" is doublespeak for "passing judgement based on current laws in ways that contradict popular opinion amongst rednecks". You're better than that, HC.

Any true freedom-loving American would support gay marriage. Anyone who doesn't can't claim to love freedom. It's as simple as that. You're legislating relationships between consenting adults. It's absurd on its face.

They're not banning homosexuality, Asher. No one is legislating to say you can't have a gay partner. You just aren't conferred state benefits for being in such a relationship. Considering that in most states that have gay marriage, it was passed by court order and not legislation, and that there is a totally valid legal principle by which you can consider this to be legislating from the bench (real judicial activism, we're not talking about Brown v. Board here), it seems perfectly reasonable to me to send a message to the supreme court of whatever state you live in that the Constitution of your state is not quite so elastic.

I'm not gonna deny that a lot of support for this is homophobia-driven bigotry, or try to justify the religious ****. I don't care about any of that. I DO very much care about courts deciding to invent rights as a way to implement policy that is not politically popular but they think is correct. That isn't the court system's job.

[UnmariKam]

So you want the government to stop issuing marriage licenses?

YES.

I cannot emphasize that enough.

The government should be out of the marriage game entirely.

[Kdgjhytiy]

People elect representatives which vote on issues in the legislature. The legislature legalized gay marriage by a very large margin. One vote, Stronach's.

Even if this went to a ridiculous referendum, gay marriage support has been well in majority territory in Canada for many, many years. Even the Conservatives won't touch that issue with a ten-foot pole and support gay marriage now. I still believe the people should have their say, and that they should have had their say back in 2005. It strikes me as amusing that you're in favor of government intervention so long as it's to your benefit.

Last numbers I saw were 60-65% in favour of same-sex marriage in Canada. Well, then. Put it up for a vote, if you feel so confident. Province by province.

[dhrishiasv]

Americans typically conflate hate speech with free speech because nuance is lost on them. There are plenty of restrictions on free speech in the US (slander, public panic, etc). I'm not quite sure how calling homosexuality sinful constitutes 'slander'.

[Grapappytek]

I'm not quite sure how calling homosexuality sinful constitutes 'slander'.

What the ****? Where did this come from?

Jesus ****ing Christ, Ben. Shove a dildo in your mouth, put a gerbil in your ass, pull up the fiddling priest video and back away from the keyboard.

[Nafheense]

Yes, this is a terrific idea by someone who preaches fiscal conservationism. Let's call for a special referendum that only religious nuts want that everyone knows won't change anything and is ultimately ****ing pointless because every court in the land has also ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

Indeed. Why not put everything up for referendum. After all, if it isn't voted for province by province, how can you know the people really support it? It's not a democracy unless it's a direct democracy!

What an idiot.

[constanyiskancho]

Wow, that's amazing. Ben hasn't lost his game at all in the last six months.

He's still a lying, bigoted, dishonest and above all else--mentally retarded--cuntwagon.

[mrPronmaker]

He's still a lying, bigoted, dishonest and above all else--mentally retarded--cuntwagon.

Come now. A ****wagon sounds rather fun to me.

[ballerturfali]

If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right.

I believe the civil right is against discrimination. At least, this is the case in Canada. I don't care how the US does it.

There is no right to marriage - there is a right to be free from discrimination on sexual orientation, amongst other things.

[Yswxomvy]

If you think the state shouldn't grant it, then you have to agree that government-recognized marriages are NOT in fact a civil right. And if it's not a fundamental right, then it's perfectly ok for the state to discriminate.

[Imiweevierm]

I believe the civil right is against discrimination. At least, this is the case in Canada. I don't care how the US does it.

There is no right to marriage - there is a right to be free from discrimination on sexual orientation, amongst other things.

You could argue all day on this--I don't think there's one conclusively correct answer, but it's my opinion that the distinction between gay marriage and traditional marriage is a perfectly reasonable one.

[Fertassa]

You could argue all day on this--I don't think there's one conclusively correct answer, but it's my opinion that the distinction between gay marriage and traditional marriage is a perfectly reasonable one.

And it's fine to have ridiculous opinions. Freedom of speech and all.

There's no reason to it whatsoever.

Is it because marriage is a contract with God? (BZZ, church/state)
Is it because marriage is for procreation? (BZZ, not a requirement)
Is it because marriage has "always been like that? (BZZ, weaksauce and not even true)

[HornyMolly]

False

What the **** does this have to do with state's rights? I don't think Canada has a 10th amendment the way the US does. The definition of marriage is not something left up to the provinces--deal with it.

All of the provinces have individually passed legislation legalizing it, as well.

Same-sex marriage was legally recognized in the provinces and territories as of the following dates:

June 10, 2003: Ontario
July 8, 2003: British Columbia
March 16, 2004: Quebec
July 14, 2004: Yukon territory
September 16, 2004: Manitoba
September 24, 2004: Nova Scotia
November 5, 2004: Saskatchewan
December 21, 2004: Newfoundland and Labrador
June 23, 2005: New Brunswick
July 20, 2005 (Civil Marriage Act): Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut territory, and the Northwest Territories

Note that in some of these cases, the marriage was in fact legal at an earlier date (for example, the Ontario ruling held that marriages performed in January 2001 were legal when performed), but the legality was questioned. As of the given dates, the legality was authoritatively established.

The decision by the Ontario government to recognize the marriage that took place in Toronto, Ontario, on January 14, 2001, makes Canada the first country in the world to have a government-legitimated same-sex marriage (the Netherlands and Belgium, which legalized same-sex marriage before Canada, had their first in April 2001 and January 2003, respectively).[2] There's a reason Ben fled Canada, and it's called rationality. He fears it. So he went straight to Big Tex.

All of Canada turned against him.

[Narkeere]

Can someone explain why this was put up for vote in a primary and not a general election? If having the people decide the rights of a minority is so important shouldn't it happen in an election with high turnout?

[outfinofulpv]

Can someone explain why this was put up for vote in a primary and not a general election? If having the people decide the rights of a minority is so important shouldn't it happen in an election with high turnout?

I don't think it's terribly relevant. But actually if you think about it low turnout could be beneficial to something restricting the rights of minorities, because you can count on the minorities turning out in good numbers while unaffected people stay home.

[NaMbessemab]

There's a reason Ben fled Canada, and it's called rationality. He fears it. So he went straight to Big Tex. Look up 'Coren Agreement'. BC didn't just pass it, they also made it part of their curriculum. As a humanities teacher, I have a choice, teach it there or teach elsewhere. I chose the latter. Texas at least values my contribution...