Debate #2 - Legalization of same-sex marriages

[Robbie]

Since same-sex marriages in Canada already became legally recognized in all the provinces and territories from 2003 to 2005, this wasn't a huge reaction for Canadians unlike the marijuana issue but was a huge issue in certain American states as it looks like Maine and Maryland approved same sex marriages with Washington State likely to follow.

Currently, these countries legally allow same-sex marriages: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden.

So far, do you think it has been a problem in Canada to allow same-sex marriages?

[Blue In BC]

Not been a problem in Canada. Not even sure what problems some might suggest.

[South Pender]

Only for those with fundamentalist religious views. They would see it as having diminished the institution of marriage.

[Blue In BC]

Only for those with fundamentalist religious views. They would see it as having diminished the institution of marriage.

I suppose. The scary part of many religions in history is that it has been a large factor for many great wars / deaths.

Essentially a view that it's ok to impose the will / view of one group over another.

That's never a good thing.

[Sir Purrcival]

This is where I go with it as well. It seems that the primary objection to same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs and somehow that the term "marriage" is solely within the purview of religion. Unfortunately that doesn't really hold water as "Civil Marriages" have been around for ages. I haven't ever seen great hue and cry about the term marriage being used in that context.
Then you get the point of view that it is ok for the formal recognition of a gay relationship, just don't call it "marriage". Seems more like a Red Herring than anything else. An argument that some might try to use as a way of impeding the solemnization of a gay relationship.
As for the performing of Gay marriages within the various church organizations. Seems to be a matter for those churches and dioceses. We have all seen recently how the Anglican Diocese has had troubles in Vancouver with their membership over the decision to let individual churches decide if they want to perform gay marriages. If I recall, one group is actually suing the Diocese for control of their church because of such a decision. .

[TheLionKing]

It's only a problem with a narrow mind. As Pierre Trudeau once said " The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"

[Blue In BC]

It's only a problem with a narrow mind. As Pierre Trudeau once said " The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"

Very true. I'm not anti religion but do agree that the " narrow mind " comment can be true in many of them over issues.

It's a little like my way or the highway of righteousness.

In the end, can't we just all get along?

[South Pender]

If I recall, one group is actually suing the Diocese for control of their church because of such a decision.

Right; that was St. John's Shaughnessy--Anglican. The congregation lost, and many of them departed, setting up a new church. The Diocese retained ownership of the church.

[sj-roc]

The poll question is a little too lacking in nuance for my liking. As I see it, there are two aspects to the matter. One is the notion of marriage as a religious sacrament administered by institutions of faith, much like baptism and confirmation. Then there is the notion of state social policy that encourages the existence of monogamous conjugal relationships as a building block of a thriving society: tax breaks for couples, inheritance laws, adoption laws, etc. The public debate I've followed over SSM in the late decade or two often seems to ignore this distinction.

[D]

I could care less, altho perhaps out of respect to the church goers and to show tolerance and acceptance of others, they should call it something other than marriage

[Sir Purrcival]

I would say that the debaters choose to ignore it, especially those that tend to see marriage as a religious construct. But it is more wilful blindness than anything. A way of supporting their argument by overlooking accidentally/on purpose that marriage has existed in many forms both legal and religious for a long, long time. But I'd say the state has taken overall authority for marriage. Whether religious or civil, unions between couples are subject to licensing of the state. Both religious and civil practitioners of wedding ceremonies are certified. Religious authorities do not have the power to enforce a marriage in the event that one party wants to divorce. They may threaten, ostracize make you jump through additional hoops but the final authority rests with the state. Like it or lump it, marriage is a legal construct in its most basic form and religious and civil authorities work within that frame work. Thus religious bodies are going to have to come to grips with the idea that "marriage" is not defined by their particular group but by the state. They don't get to choose what "marriage" means or how it is defined. If they are upset by the use of the term, then another course of action would be for those religious bodies to come up with another term to convey their own particular brand of union rather than claim ownership of the existing one.

[cromartie]

I'll give you the American answer, since the question was asked at least partially, within an American context. (Spoiler Alert, I agree with you guys).

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states the following:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If states choose to confer rights by marriage to heterosexual couples, but not homosexual couples they are in violation of this clause of the US Constitution. You are provide couples of the opposite sex with legal rights (inheritance, Power of Attorney, adoption, custody of children etc.) that you are depriving homosexual couples of. This violates the 14th Amendment and state laws

How these laws stand in light of this is beyond me.

That said, there are two solutions to this in my mind.

1) Separate church and state. Remove the idea of "marriage" from what could be considered a Civil Union. Remove the ability of clergy to sanction what is a legal union between two consenting people of legal age. Remove the terminology of marriage from the legal books.

2) Don't compel religious organizations to perform ceremonies for same sex couples if it is against their interpretation of religious beliefs.

If I look at the issue somewhat dispassionately, I think that in a lot of the cases down here, confusion on the ballot issues came about because people gained the perception that their place of worship was going to be legally compelled to perform ceremonies, something which they oppose. The original legalization ruling in Maine, for example, explicitly excluded this (it was banned in 2010, then legalized again in Maine yesterday).

Secondly, again speaking on the American side of the issue, one of the emerging trends with Millenials is the idea that "It doesn't impact me, so why oppose it?" Ultimately, in states where evangelicals don't have a significant influence, over time, you will see a lot of the ballot initiatives that were really cynical ploys to turn out the white conservative vote in the early '00s be set aside, if the court system doesn't take care of them first.