Well its official, Bill C-38 has passed and all Canadians will have the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. Yep, from now on (as the marriage monopolists like to say) it won’t only be Adam and Eve, but Adam and Steve, and of course, Marge and Patty.
Marriage has been freed from the clutches of religious oligopolies and wanna be cultural monopolists, free peoples, and the courts have spoken, and the institution of marriage has been saved. It’s a great day for civil rights.
For some it’s Sodom and Gomorrah, for others it’s an opportunity to indulge in a bit of total insanity.
So, where to for the Christian right and conservatives in Canada? Well, they’ll just have to find some sort of new wedge or issue with which to demonise another sector of the Canadian public. Maybe they can busy themselves with the sex lives of flat tailed rodents or the unseemly proclivities of the antlered community.
But in reality, it’s only right that my brother Nicholas enjoys the same rights as I do under law. Let’s hope that some day soon, all my homosexual Australian brothers and sisters have the same rights.
Damn, the most boring country in the world, is one up on us.
Don’t confuse cold with boring WBB, whaddya think we are Swedes?
Some day after a cleansing ale or twelve I will regale you with the twists and turns of Canadian politics and society, and amaze you with it’s incredible complications.
Watch as a totally corrupt government pulls a rainbow rabbit out of a hat as the yokels from Alberta look on in slackjawed awe, and gasp as the conservatives find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Then when it appears that it’ll all spin out of control, the trapeze artists of the high court perform a Bill of Rights and pull it all together to once again save the day.
Polygamous marriage next in Canada for those who feel discriminated against by the current orthodoxy now eh?
Heard about the recent survey of 500 women in England who were asked if they would consider having an affair with Shane Warne now and 75% of them said never again!
Oh and if liberal progressive Canadians want to know if it’s OK to marry more than one sheila they should naturally consult the guru here
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14345
Did they remember to change the divorce laws*?
Oh no, the Brits want to allow religious songs in civil ceremonies! What? Empty civil ceremonies not enough?
Oh and Bible readings too like the “Ode to Love” (1 Corinthians 13, and it’s not an ode) are also OK if they are not particularly religious in content.
ROFL!
Did anyone point out that love is not an abstract quality in Christian understanding? As in God is love, not love is god.
I like The Guardian’s headline: “Incidental godliness”
But back on topic. Phil it would be interesting to know where this idea of “marriage as a right” came from. Frankly noone has the right to marry me or you, nor an ight year old girl, nor my dead cat, nor someone else’s husband or wife…and neither should they. Where did that rhetoric of “right to marry” come from?
—
*Can’t vouch for the stats quoted on this site -it’s just the first I googled to get a reference for the divorce cock up - but some match stats I’ve read elsewhere, eg marriage rates in Sweden are low.
It always comes back to Sweden.
Just checking you are still around E.P.
EP’s always around. In fact he’s positively circular.
One group is allowed to do it, another group is not allowed to do it. Under law, group one has a “right”in law to do it, and group two does not. You have a right to pop down the shops for some milk, you do not have the right to kill someone. Big Brother has the right to show certain intimiate content and scenes, but doesn’t have the right to do it at 7pm. These are legal matters, if the law changes to allow random killing, I could talk about legally having the “right” to do it. This may not be the meaning of “right” in a philosophical/sociological/whatever sense — and there may be an interesting story someone can tell about the evolution of the term within the gay community — but it’s where the rhetoric comes from and its the meaning it has in the popular mind. Marriage is a legal act, so the right to do it or not do it comes solely from whether it is legal or not.
Those UK laws are nonsensical. You should be allowed to have anything you want in your damn ceremony — I’m assuming in Oz you are. All of the least empty weddings I’ve been to have been civil ceremonies.
Sure if the law changes. But that rhetoric was used to get the law changed in the first place.
Not sure about Oz ceremonies Amanda. None of the ones I’ve been to have had any ‘religious’ content of any persuasion. Have been to funerals by celebrants where they’ve had religious songs played (e.g. Amazing Grace) and sometimes pauses for reflection or something.
But if I remember, I’ll ask one of the guys at work who’s traning to be a marriage celebrant.
Oh and I’ve been to some pretty empty and godless church weddings as well, with or without appropriate hymns and readings.
Shouldn’t that be Selma and Patty?
Oh, FFS. Patty and Selma are sisters, Don Marco. As are Patty and Marge, for that matter. And I don’t thing they’ve legalised incestual marriage yet.
The ones to watch are Carl and Lenny. Definitely in the closet.
Fyodor, incestuous marriage is the next dagger to the heart of Christian civilisation aimed by atheistic evildoing chardonnay quaffing secularist terrorist fellowtravelling elites.
About time a civilised country started behaving like a civilised country.
Does this mean the Canadian border will now be assaulted by a pink tsunami of matrimonialy inclined Americans?
Assaulted by immigration applications perhaps. Reverse side of ”give us your huddled (gay) masses”
Polygamists and incestuists have the same right to marry as anyone else does.
Some Brisbanites heading to Canada to get married.
Thank God! Canada’s temporary claim to be interesting has just been eclipsed by Spain. (A very sexy and interesting place.)
There is a God.
“We will decide who comes into our country, and whether they’re into same sex union goodness”