B.C. Court backs Same-Sex Marriages

[Chris]

Story Here (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/01/samesex_bc030501)

VANCOUVER - Same-sex couples celebrated Thursday as another Canadian court ruled that preventing gay couples from marrying is discriminatory. Ottawa hasn't said if it will appeal.

The B.C. Court of Appeal said marriage involves a committed relationship between two people, and that the sex of the partners is not relevant. It also said being able to produce children is not a defining characteristic.

The court ordered the federal government to change laws preventing same-sex marriages by July 12, 2004.

Similar decisions have been made by judges in Quebec and Ontario. Ottawa is appealing those cases.

Two years ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the legal definition of "marriage" should be restricted to heterosexual couples. He said the limit was justified under the Constitution.

But the province's top judges overturned his decision Thursday, siding with eight couples who had challenged the ruling. The gay men and women insist that same-sex couples have the right to get marriage licences.

"We're excited," said Bob Peacock, who has been waiting 35 years to marry his partner Lloyd Thornhill. But both men think their marriage may have to stay on hold for another year because the Supreme Court will probably be asked to weigh in.

Groups opposed to same-sex marriages expressed disappointment over Thursday's ruling and called on MPs to do whatever they can to preserve existing legislation.


"Institutions are not about rights. They are about serving society. And marriage does a very good job of that," said Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family.

"No other relationship provides the unique benefits for kids, the parents themselves and for society in general – even for those who are not married."

The three-member panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal suggested the definition of marriage read "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

The federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is holding public meetings across the country, asking Canadians if they think Parliament should lift the ban on registering same-sex marriages.

Gay rights have steadily expanded since homosexuality was made legal in Canada in 1969, and "these developments have substantial public support, although the matter remains controversial," the B.C. Court of Appeal wrote.

"This evolution cannot be ignored. Civil marriage should adapt to contemporary notions of marriage as an institution in a society which recognizes the rights of homosexual persons to non-discriminatory treatment."

[Faithless]

"Institutions are not about rights. They are about serving society. And marriage does a very good job of that," said Michael Martens, a spokesman for Focus on the Family.

Marriage won't stop a wife beater from doing his thing.

[shy]

this is great news! good ol' BC! :)

so does this mean that this is a for sure thing? or does it require some other levels to pass?

[Everglaze]

I don't agree with this....just for the Children's sake. If they adopted children, I'd feel sorry for them unless the children actually want to be raised by parents who are of the same gender.

[shy]

Originally posted by Everglaze@May 8 2003, 10:50 AM
I don't agree with this....just for the Children's sake. If they adopted children, I'd feel sorry for them unless the children actually want to be raised by parents who are of the same gender.
you needn't feel sorry for the children. because sociological studies have shown that a family doesn't necessarily require a 'father' and a 'mother'. if that were the case, you should feel sorry for single family parents. and though it's unfortunate that the child could not have two parents like most people... the child, if raised in a very supportive and loving environment... will not only grow up to be fine... but strong!

same sexed couples can raise children up properly just as well as straight couples. in fact... you should feel more sorry for

1) children who are living in an abusive home
2) orphans

sorry... but i think your way of thinking is a bit closed minded. and somewhat discriminating.

all a child needs is to be raised by people who will love and support him and or.

in conclusion... "Break the Norm!" (just in case you forgot your own signature here)

[contra_diction]

Originally posted by Everglaze@May 8 2003, 10:50 AM
I don't agree with this....just for the Children's sake. If they adopted children, I'd feel sorry for them unless the children actually want to be raised by parents who are of the same gender.
really that's what i'm wondering about, in a couple generations or so, there will be kids raised this way? raised to be gay? or.... i don't know, it just seems weird to me.

[shy]

Originally posted by contra_diction@May 8 2003, 11:14 AM
really that's what i'm wondering about, in a couple generations or so, there will be kids raised this way? raised to be gay? or.... i don't know, it just seems weird to me.
why would it seem weird to you? did you read my previous post? if the child is brought up by two loving people, regardless of their sexual orientation, what is so weird about that?

and now... just because a child is brought up by two gay people does not mean that they will be gay. and you are making the assumption that gay people will purposely raise them to be gay. that is silly. think about it. they are not doing this to try and take over the world by creating gay kids. that's not how it words. people are just born gay. that's it. if a straight kid is, hypothetically raised to be gay (which is silly), they will eventually realize that they are straight. it's like the reversal for gay people.

and even if the child does turn out to find out he/she is gay... which has no relation to what his parent's sexual orientation is, what is so wrong about that?

you know, i think we might need a LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual) forum so we can provide information and get rid of any misconceptions people have of LGBT's.

[Danny]

Originally posted by Everglaze@May 8 2003, 01:50 PM
I don't agree with this....just for the Children's sake. If they adopted children, I'd feel sorry for them unless the children actually want to be raised by parents who are of the same gender.
what kind of crap is this?

Do you think there are a line of infants waiting around to get into a line to determine their parents.... hmm... I want to be adopted and raised in a same sex household... that is a load of crap.

Have you heard the expression the entire village raises the child? That is how it should be done, just becuase the primaries are of the same sex should not influence how the child is raised, his environment will teach him. Just because he sees daddy and daddy does not mean that he is going to want to be gay. I say let kids be raised by people who can raise them properly. There are so many jacked up fucked up families out there between women and men, how can you believe that a child would be better off in that case?

This is the 21st century, we should be looking at people for who they are as opposed to what they are. We should be raising our children to accept that certain things may be different (as longas they are not harming anything/anybody) but are acceptable.

Thoughts along those lines are incredibly close minded.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@May 8 2003, 05:04 PM
what kind of crap is this?

Do you think there are a line of infants waiting around to get into a line to determine their parents.... hmm... I want to be adopted and raised in a same sex household... that is a load of crap.

Have you heard the expression the entire village raises the child? That is how it should be done, just becuase the primaries are of the same sex should not influence how the child is raised, his environment will teach him. Just because he sees daddy and daddy does not mean that he is going to want to be gay. I say let kids be raised by people who can raise them properly. There are so many jacked up fucked up families out there between women and men, how can you believe that a child would be better off in that case?

This is the 21st century, we should be looking at people for who they are as opposed to what they are. We should be raising our children to accept that certain things may be different (as longas they are not harming anything/anybody) but are acceptable.

Thoughts along those lines are incredibly close minded.
who are you, and what have you done with Danny?

haha just kidding man.

bravo. well said.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 04:18 PM
who are you, and what have you done with Danny?

haha just kidding man.

bravo. well said.
your sister has warned me of you... :) and she has posted really cute kiddy pics of you to.... don't make me break them out... :)

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@May 8 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 04:18 PM
who are you, and what have you done with Danny?

haha just kidding man.

bravo.  well said.
your sister has warned me of you... :) and she has posted really cute kiddy pics of you to.... don't make me break them out... :)
yeah yeah yeah. everybody already told me that they saw the pic. i think taz sent it to everybody. that bitch.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Danny@May 8 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@May 8 2003, 04:18 PM
who are you, and what have you done with Danny?

haha just kidding man.

bravo.  well said.
your sister has warned me of you... :) and she has posted really cute kiddy pics of you to.... don't make me break them out... :)
yeah yeah yeah. everybody already told me that they saw the pic. i think taz sent it to everybody. that bitch.
damn... beat me to it.... :(

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Well, bravo. To be bluntly honest I'm not much of a supporter of the gay community, but they deserve civil rights and freedom from government intrusion into their personal lives when they're not doing anything wrong, like everyone else, and this decision represents another victory for freeing the institutions of civil society from government control, and returning their management to the people who created those institutions.

Marriage and sex are none of the government's damn business. They got better things to spend their time, money, and endless forms on.

Of course with this precedent in place I give it about 6 months before some gay couple steps up and sues a life insurance firm for discrimination because they offer lower rates to men married to women than to men married to men. The government will then be perfectly happy to step in and force the actuaries to lump in disease and death statistics for gay married couples with the statistics for straight married couples and charge them both the same rate ...

[etcj]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@May 8 2003, 04:37 PM
Of course with this precedent in place I give it about 6 months before some gay couple steps up and sues a life insurance firm for discrimination because they offer lower rates  to men married to women than to men married to men. The government will then be perfectly happy to step in and force the actuaries to lump in disease and death statistics for gay married couples with the statistics for straight married couples and charge them both the same rate ...
Well you're basing this assumption on a slippery slope that perhaps is true. However, does it make it wrong? A discriminatory practice is simply that, and fear of such slippery slope does not mean policies should not be changed. Consistency in the law is what makes them work. Otherwise, as you said, you end up with endless litigation over the same legal matter.

I do admit that this ruling is not necessarily a victory for folks in the United States. A lot of the recent lawsuits in the US Courts are being decided, even one currently before the Supreme Court.

Marriage is a very powerful institution in many cultures. Furthermore, it has signifcant effects upon the development of young people. The advent of marriage is simply a way to control sexuality and sex - we expect heterosexual young people to get married before they have sex. In giving the power of marriage to non-heterosexual couples, you can potentially send a positive message to GLBT young people about long-term monogamous relationships and increasing the value of intimacy. Of course, that in itself has a few inherent fallacies, but it at least addresses most of the unspoken negative assumptions and judgments that are placed against GLBT people.

[AngryABCGirl]

w00t w00t

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by etcj@May 8 2003, 07:38 PM
Well you're basing this assumption on a slippery slope that perhaps is true. However, does it make it wrong? A discriminatory practice is simply that
It's wrong for the government to step in and force a private business to provide a service to two different groups of customers at the same price when the underlying cost of providing that service may be different.

In the past we've seen that married persons are at lower risk of various diseases, accidents, etc., than unmarried persons. Hence they get to pay less for car insurance, life insurance, etc., than the general population, because their risk profile doesn't match that of the general population. Insurance companies aren't charging married couples lower rates because they want to be discriminatory against single people and make them feel rejected by society so they go out and change their evil single ways and get married, they charge married couples lower rates because in the long run it costs less to provide them with insurance than other people. Among other things, the moderating influence of having a husband/wife means you're less likely to do stupid stuff on a whim --- go out and do drugs or have sex with multiple partners, run off and climb mount everest, go dynamite fishing in a lake, whatnot --- and more likely to do stuff that's good for you, like maintain a healthy diet, hold to a strict medication schedule if you come down with a disease, etc.

It may turn out that gay married couples have the same risk profile as straight married couples for all such factors, in which case the market would not bear their being charged higher insurance rates, and we have no problem. On the other hand, it may turn out not to be so. In which case, the insurance companies charging them higher rates wouldn't reflect any intent to oppress gay people, but would simply reflect the realities of the business environment. Calling that "discrimination" is something of a stretch, and trying to get the government to "correct" that discrimination results in the actual oppression of honest businessowners and actuaries just trying to make a buck.

[achtungbaby]

Moving to Rant...