my moment of political grandstanding

[anotheranon]

I've not said much about the current political situation in my own LJ lately, though I'm sure I've commented in many of y'all's. It's not that I'm not aware of what's going on, it's that my strong opinions and busy schedule prevent my saying what I'd like to say in anything resembling an articulate manner. Besides, lots of y'all have said things far better than I could have :)

So all I'll say is "sign this":

http://www.pfaw.org/go/save_our_constitution/

Carry on.

Comments

[tommdroid.livejournal.com]

this morning I first read timcharmorbien's post on marriages and now yours on constitution.

you brave and strong people, hang in there, hopefully you will win on cheer exhaustion of the stupid.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

This is a very hot topic in the U.S. news now. Frankly I think Bush is using gay marriage to distract everyone from the more immediate issues of the war in Iraq and the poor economy.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

Gay marriage seems to have disappeared from our headlines lately ... overshadowed by a major political/financial scandal (well, major for Canada, that is) which involves our new prime minister. Happily, marriage licenses continue to be issued in the provinces which began the practice ... hopefully by the time this current distraction dies down, people will have forgotten they were protesting same-sex marriage and perceive it as an everyday occurrance ;-)

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

How much protest was there "up there"? True to U.S. media form, Canadian gay marriage wasn't even a story here until our own wingnuts started getting their panties in a twist over it :P

I'm just curious how the protests and media coverage was handled up there. Maybe I'm just a Pollyanna, but I still think that had the issue been framed less hysterically here there wouldn't be as much protest as there is.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

A fair amount, but the national media tended to portray 'em in an unflattering light :-) Pretty much the same thing you're experiencing at the moment ... the Bible says it's wrong, nonsense about the government forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages (which it can't do ... this relates to widespread ignorance of the fact that church marriages not being recognized by law, and that only civil marriage counts). Don't recall ever hearing anybody up here claiming that allowing SSM would opening the floodgates of pedophilia and bestiality. The only public official that started raving about this being part of the worldwide gay conspiracy to take over the world was fired (and it turned out that he was a U.S.-born, biblebelt Baptist ***grin***). At least one other politico was also fired for making anti-gay remarks.

This is the most current news item in the CBC site ... whether Martin manages to keep the promise is something else (since he was the guy signing the cheques involved in the current Sponsorship Scandal ... his claim that he had no idea where the money was going is likely true, since it's impossible for any one minister to read EVERY bit of paper in a department, but we'll just have to see what happens with the investigation). Chretien started the legal wheels turning for SSM before he retired and Martin has inherited the thing.

For Canada it's tricky because marriage law is split between federal and provincial governments ... there are vague spots and overlaps in the various legislations. Jurisdiction will have to be determined before new legislation can be passed. On the plus side, all this began because of a Supreme Court decision that denying legal marriage to same-sex partners was unconstitutional and that offering anything LESS than the same deal that het couples already get would also be unconstitutional ... the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that it is illegal to discriminate against any individual on the grounds of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." According to the Supreme Court decision, denial of marriage rights is a form of sex discrimination.

So we're currently just waiting for the legislation to go through all the hoops ... I'll keep you posted on any further developments.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

nonsense about the government forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages (which it can't do ... this relates to widespread ignorance of the fact that church marriages not being recognized by law, and that only civil marriage counts).

This kind of jumped out at me, because I'm not sure how the difference between church and civil marriages play out in the United States - for all I know, it may vary state to state or even county to county. Back in 1997, D. and I had to file for a marriage license at the county courthouse, but the minister who performed the ceremony signed it, so religious officials (whether they perform explicitly religious ceremonies or not) do carry some weight.

I am surprised that more people have not tried to frame this as a church-state separation issue. None of the same-sex marriage activists are trying to tell churches who they can and cannot marry, they just want their unions to have the same recognized rights as those of straight marriages.

IMHO the way it's run in Canada (if I'm reading your comment right) seems far better - civil marriages under the law for all, religious marriages are icing.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

I would imagine that your church and civil marriage laws are fairly similar to ours. An ordained minister/priest/whatever is also authorized to act in the capacity of justice of the peace so that they can officiate the signing of a marriage license. The signing of the license is the civil marriage ... the only marriage recognized by law. It is possible to have a religious ceremony without the civil procedure, but the law/government would then regard you as living in a common-law partnership. The Canadian government has NO legal power over religious marriage ceremonies.

Most Canadian employers recognize common-law relationships, whether same- or opposite-sex, for purposes of health benefits, etc., but a recorded civil marriage is the only recognized qualification for most government-administrated pensions, survivors' benefits, situations where somebody has died without a will, etc., etc. The really active campaigning for same-sex marriage in Canada arose when surviving partners of people who died of AIDS couldn't claim any of the compensation that a married survivor is entitled to ... thanks to another court decision last year, some of these benefits are now being paid retroactively back to 1985 :-)))))))