[aldo_14]

*opens can of worms*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4082819.stm

Canada's Supreme Court has told the government it can legalise gay marriage without violating the constitution.

The move comes hours after New Zealand's parliament voted to recognise civil unions between gay couples.

The non-binding legal opinion followed two days of Supreme Court hearings in October in which judges heard arguments from both sides in the debate.

The province of Alberta and religious groups had argued that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

But the court declared that Ottawa had the authority to rule on marriage.

'Union of two'

The judges said that the federal government's proposed definition of marriage as "the lawful union of two persons" would not violate the constitution.

However, they stopped short of saying that the Canadian constitution actually required the government to allow gay marriage across the country.

The authorities in Ottawa had hoped that the court would go further, as this would have made it easier to pass legislation.

The court also said religious officials could not be forced to officiate at homosexual marriages against their beliefs.

Gay marriage is already legal in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and one of its three northern territories, but it remains illegal in the rest of the country.

Prime Minister Paul Martin had pledged that his Liberal government would bring in legislation on the issue quickly, whatever the court had to say.


(note the bit in red - I think this should be the way to go over this issue; religions have a say, but only amongst their own subscribers)

[Kazan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


The court also said religious officials could not be forced to officiate at homosexual marriages against their beliefs.

just like it would be in the united states

[Thrilla]

I think they remove to term marriage and replace it with civil union.  I think marriage is a more religious term.  Civil Union sounds more "appealing" to those on the right.  I don't care, and these types of debates shouldn't be going on.  The government has no right to tell you who you can and cannot marry.  No different than adultery being legal.  Except under UCMJ, but I'm not going to go there.

[aldo_14]

I don't think so, because then you'd have to remove marriage as a term altogether from the statute books; as people still have a right - a choice to - marry outside of church / religion regardless of their sexuality (i.e. a heterosexual marriage would have to be legally defined as a civil union if out of church...)... I just think it'd be using semantics as an excuse.

[Ace]

YES! Because 'persons' can also be legally expanded to 'two sentient beings.'

*Hugs and kisses every Canadian and New Zealander*

We all know who's going to become the two global superpowers after first contact

[Rictor]

*shrug*

Bout time. Not that I care really, its just kind of nice to hear.

[Knight Templar]

You mean, "boot time.", right?

[Krackers87]

Thats pretty awesome. Go liberalism, w00t!!!

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
You mean, "boot time.", right?

It's strange.  I have always heard this comment made by Americans, and I have no idea where it comes from.  I have never yet heard a Canadian say "about" as if it were "a boot" or "a boat."  My wife would agree with me, and she is American.

[Thorn]

Christ, the Newfies don't even do it.

[Bobboau]

I thought this happened a year or two ago.

[Rictor]

What was that Thorn? I couldn't quite make it out due to the thick maritime accent. You'll have to speak clearly, and by that I mean speak English at all.

damn Newfies

[Thorn]

Don't make me puck ya, bye.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I thought this happened a year or two ago.

Naa...a judge just declared that it was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to not allow gay marriage.  It wasn't formally legalized...just legal precedent set.  So its been jumping between the Supreme Court and the Federal Government and the provinces.

Nobody was quite ready to deal with it until now.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It's strange.  I have always heard this comment made by Americans, and I have no idea where it comes from.  I have never yet heard a Canadian say "about" as if it were "a boot" or "a boat."  My wife would agree with me, and she is American.

Well, you probably don't get it as much in Vancouver. B.C. is like Seattle Jr. I know they do it north of Wisconsin though, because they do it in Wisconsin. I also have distant relatives in Ontario who say it, so...

[Ace]

Considering the fact that BC is bigger than Seattle, it's more like Seattle is Vancouver Jr.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It's strange.  I have always heard this comment made by Americans, and I have no idea where it comes from.  I have never yet heard a Canadian say "about" as if it were "a boot" or "a boat."  My wife would agree with me, and she is American.

It's Scottish... **** knows where or why the Canadian angle comes into it, but that's how it's pronounced in this fair land.

[Grey Wolf]

Scottish immigrants, perhaps.

[Thorn]

Probably. There is tons of Celtic influence in Nova Scotia alone. Hell, Nova Scotia is Latin for "New Scotland".

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well, you probably don't get it as much in Vancouver. B.C. is like Seattle Jr. I know they do it north of Wisconsin though, because they do it in Wisconsin. I also have distant relatives in Ontario who say it, so...

How exactly is BC 'Seattle junior'?