Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour of Same Sex Marriage

[bcdphie]

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...age041209.html

The Supreme Court Decision

I'm glad Canada is setting a positive example for the US.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by ztawinthropgirl
I'm glad Canada is setting a positive example for the US.

Will you be a bride or a groom?

-Rudey
--I'm gonna be a bride in my wedding

[Lady Pi Phi]

I'm happy about the Supreme Court ruling. Now, the question is, will Parliment change the definition of marriage?

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Originally posted by Rudey
Will you be a bride or a groom?

-Rudey
--I'm gonna be a bride in my wedding

Get knocked up Rudith?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Get knocked up Rudith?

Why not? I could get better hours at work and then get some time off for family leave or whatever they call it. Now that I think about it, this sounds great.

-Rudey

[Taualumna]

No comment...

[RACooper]

I did like how the SCoC (Supreme Court of Canada) took some of the wind out of the religious right's sails...

See the SCoC ruled that yes same-sex marriage is technically a right under the Charter of Rights... but they also ruled that the provision for religious freedom meant that relgious institutions (churches/temples/mosques/shrines/etc...) were not compelled to perform same-sex marriages.

Hopefully this will push the government and the courts into finally going through with the suggestion from way back in the late 60s, when the laws against homosexuality were challenged, that simply stated that marriage be defined as either a "holy" or "civil" union between two people legally recognized by the provincial and federal governments...

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by RACooper
...the SCoC ruled that yes same-sex marriage is technically a right under the Charter of Rights... but they also ruled that the provision for religious freedom meant that relgious institutions (churches/temples/mosques/shrines/etc...) were not compelled to perform same-sex marriages...

Again this brings me back to my rant and rave on why this is even an issue? I don't see how any religious institution could be compelled to perform same-sex marriages when they aren't even compelled to perform heterosexual marriages. Can some one please tell me why this is a big issue. Or is it because the religious leaders are talking out of their asses?

I apologize for my rant, but this should never have been an issue. We really should be discussing whether or not the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The one thing the Supreme Court refused to address.

[sigmagrrl]

GO CANADA!!!


Now, if only we could bind and gag those in the "red" states down here, the US could get it done!!!!!!!!!!