OK, kiddo! Here are all the fantastically amazing posts tagged with Same-sex marriage
Great news for our friends in Washington, today! A bill legalizing same-sex marriage was passed by the state Senate this morning. The bill, which was voted in 28 to 21 against now heads to the House, where it is expected to pass.
Canada’s famous (well, internally famous) Heritage Minutes got a new addition recently. The succinctly titled Canada Gay Marriage may not be an It’s Time in terms of quality, but hey, at least we’re lucky enough to have it depict the past instead of the future!
Unspinning The Same-Sex Marriage Fiasco
On Thursday, an article in the Globe and Mail declared that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives had annulled over five thousand Canadian same-sex marriages issued to non-residents since 2005. Worldwide panic and probably cannibalism ensued, with the government rapidly trying to diffuse the situation, and the media using a mixture of government-fed information and political spin to make things supremely confusing for anyone hoping to understand exactly what happened in the first place.
So, what did happen?
Depending on which articles you read, the situation has been described as anything from a sneaky reversal of marriage policy followed by intense backpedaling (I’m looking at you, Globe and Mail), to a heroic government announcement granting foreign same-sex couples legal recognition for the first time (That’s you, National Post). The truth is a third option entirely, and is every bit as boring as you’d expect the details of international law to be.
To spare you an unwanted nap, here’s what I understand in the utmost of brevity: A couple from the UK got married in Canada and then later decided they wanted a divorce. When it comes to divorce and other matters of legal consequence, though, it turns out that Canadian law requires that the couple’s marriage be recognized in their country of citizenship. A lawyer with the Department of Justice, arguing on behalf of the government, thus declared that the couple’s same-sex marriage is not legally recognizable in this case, and was therefore never valid in the first place. This, he extended, means that virtually all other same-sex marriages issued to foreigners are likewise invalid.
A poo tempest followed.
Now, I’m not at all fond of being in the position of defending Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (I find most of their policies indefensible and the others generally pretty sucky), but I truly think this whole interpretation caught them off guard. I don’t believe that the Department of Justice lawyer was arguing based on explicit instruction from the PMO, nor do I think Harper is actively seeking to end same-sex marriage in Canada. (He still does his best to prevent other advances in equality and protection; equalizing the age of consent and adding protections for trans Canadians comes to mind, but I sincerely don’t think he wants to take away our right to marry.)
At any rate, despite what you may read, there was no policy change here—just a lawyer making a foolish argument. Rather than side with the lawyer’s interpretation, the government has stated that they will remedy the situation the same way I would: Explicitly clarify the law to recognize marriages in legal matters, no matter what the legality of those marriages are in the couple’s home country.
What I wouldn’t do, though, is then try to score extra political points by blaming this debacle on the previous Liberal government, which is exactly what the Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson did in front of the media: “This is a legislative gap left by the Liberal government of the day when the law was changed in 2005,” he said. “The confusion and pain resulting from this gap is completely unfair to those who are affected.”
This legislative gap—which I doubt can accurately be described as such—existed long before same-sex marriage was even a reality in Canada. If the Tories had been in power in 2005 we simply wouldn’t have noticed because gays would not be able to marry—and since virtually all opposite-sex marriages are recognized abroad, no case to highlight this “gap” would ever have been brought forward. (Once Mr. Nicholson renounces the injustice demonstrated by the Tories in their previous attempts to prevent and then strip away our marriage rights, he may then comment on the unfairness of those affected by the government’s own lawyer’s interpretation.)
So, what should we take away from all this?
Something very encouraging, indeed.
Attempts to strip rights away from gay people will result in a demonstrated public outrage capable of severely threatening the government’s popularity. Despite some very loud voices of bigotry out there, support for equal rights and acceptance of gay people is the mainstream view in Canada. And that’s worth celebrating.
- Despite legal about-face, Harper has ‘no intention’ of reopening gay marriage [Globe and Mail]
- Ottawa moves to defuse same-sex controversy [Globe and Mail]
- All same-sex marriages declared legal and valid by justice minister Rob Nicholson [National Post]
- Conservatives to change civil marriage law [CBC News]
Legal Same-Sex Marriage Improves Health
As if common sense weren’t enough reason to give full, equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, a study out of Columbia University has provided some extra support.
Legal same-sex marriage, according to researchers, reduces the number of medical visits among gay and bisexual men by 13 percent, further reducing health care costs by 14 percent.
Mark Hatzenbuehler, the lead researcher on the study, said that legal equality likely results in health benefits due to a reduction of stress-related issues, both mental and physical. (Living in a committed relationship where someone you love is keeping an eye on your health and safety probably doesn’t hurt either.)
So, if I understand how medical statistical methodology works, allow me to summarize: Since we can marry, gay men in Canada are 13 percent more likely to survive after licking a subway seat. And that’s good to know.
The study was published last week in the American Journal of Public Health, and tracked over 1,200 patients in a Massachusetts health care clinic.
- Same-sex laws reduce stress, medical visits [CBC News]
Tories Condemn Nigerian Anti-Gay Bill
The federal Conservative Party—who re-affirmed an official party policy to ban same-sex marriage in Canada only 6 months ago—has issued a strong condemnation toward Nigeria for a draconian law that punishes same-sex wedding participants with up to 14 years in jail.
Well, that’s a tad severe of Nigeria, wouldn’t you say? I may have to cancel all my planned vacations to Maiduguri and Ogbomoso in protest.
A condemnation was undoubtedly the right thing to do on the part of the Tories (and specifically John Baird), but it doesn’t seem particularly meaningful when their own party policy only differs in the punishment, not attitude toward the law itself.
Nigeria’s proposed bill is also a very easy thing to condemn, since the punishment is about as proportionate to the crime as women MPs are to the rest of the Conservative party.
But, hey. Baby steps, right?
- John Baird slams Nigeria over anti-gay bill [CBC News]
Thumbs Up To Equal Marriage From Australia’s Governing Party
The Australian Labor Party officially adopted policies in support of full equal marriage rights for same-sex couples last week.
That’s an encouraging sign, certainly increasing the likelyhood of a successful same-sex marriage bill being introduced in parliament.
Canada’s governing Conservative party, incidentally, officially adopted an opposite policy during its last convention, supporting the revocation of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in Canada. But, given Stephen Harper’s history of plagiaris—err… I mean, enthusiastic imitation—of Australian politicians, perhaps the Tories will now reconsider.
Here’s wishing Australia the best of luck in its journey toward full, equal rights!
Nigeria Proposes Jail Time For Same-Sex Marriage
A Nigerian bill, opened for debate this month, will jail anyone who has—or bears witness to—a same-sex marriage ceremony in the country.
According to the Nigerian senate website, the bill would forbid the “coming together of persons of same sex with the purpose of living together as husband and wife or for other purposes of same sexual relationship.”
The wording of the bill is such that it would likely apply to foreigners upon entry to Nigeria as well.
Well, there goes my plans to move to Nigeria and become a renowned baker of same-sex wedding cakes. Plus, I was looking forward to seeing that really amazing tourist attraction of some sort that Nigeria is so well known for.
Oh well.
- Nigerian bill would punish gay marriage with five years in jail [National Post]
The Story Of My (Super Gay) Wedding
The following article was one that I originally wrote for the September, 2010 issue of Outlooks magazine. Although I’ve now already celebrated my first wedding anniversary, I figured this would be a worthwhile time to reflect on a very special group of lobbyists that tried their hardest to force us out of a wedding in the first place. Enjoy!
So, I’m getting married in a week. A gay wedding. Exciting, right? I’m pretty nervous about the whole thing, too. Don’t get me wrong. The commitment part is kind of a no-brainer. I’m just worried that if things aren’t handled just right, grave consequences will hang on my conscience forever.
Let me explain. My wedding, I’ve discovered, has upset a large number of people. To my credit, I don’t think this was my fault; I simply hadn’t assumed that so many strangers would feel so passionately about my relationship.
I suppose the problems started about a year before my fiancé and I made the plans official. Although my wedding had been made a legal possibility many years earlier, REAL Women of Canada and the Canada Family Action Coalition jointly issued a press release announcing that they’d be seeking a national referendum on our marriage. Lots and lots of people that I’ve never met, they said, didn’t think my fiancé and I were a very good fit. Apparently, we ought to have asked everyone in Canada first.
I wasn’t too keen on the whole referendum thing, personally. We preferred our wedding to be a small, private event. And, while polls strongly suggested that most Canadians would be fine with our plans, it seemed like a pretty big inconvenience to ask everyone individually. The referendum never happened, luckily, but there were still obstacles.
The year we got engaged, Focus On The Family Canada, the Institute For Canadian Values, and the Canada Family Action Coalition were apparently so displeased with our lack of consultation about the wedding details that they started a campaign for an official, royal commission on our marriage. A group of commissioners working without government intervention, they suggested, should be ordered to intimately study my relationship with my fiancé and report back to the queen’s representatives with recommendations. The outcome, the lobbyists hoped, would be to cancel our wedding.
I guess this one really took me off guard. My financé and I had already given ample thought to formalizing our relationship and commitment, but perhaps we were missing something. A royal commission was pretty serious stuff, after all. There had only been two such commissions launched in Canada in the last ten years: One about the Air India bombing (Canada’s largest terrorist incident), and another about the future of health care. The mere prospect of such a costly inquiry made me anxious.
If I had to pinpoint the greatest cause of stress, though, I think it was Conservative MP Harold Albrecht. His blunt statement helped me grasp the unintended gravity of our plans. Our wedding, he declared, “will succeed in wiping out an entire society in just one generation.”
All of society?
My mind frantically raced, searching for what detail I could have possibly overlooked to cause such a disaster. Was the frosting that we had selected for our wedding cupcakes too bold of a colour, capable of sparking a cascading, mass seizure—wherein one guest would be thrown into epileptic fits so grotesque that all those within view would share the same fate? Maybe the outdoor location we had chosen was part of a sensitive ecosystem, jeopardizing the survival of important phytoplanktons, collapsing Earth’s food chain from the bottom up? Or maybe we had inadvertently planned the greatest wedding ever—an event so perfect that it ended the tradition of marriage completely, removing the only construct capable of ensuring the continuation of human reproduction (according to some).
All seemed a little far fetched, but what else could our small wedding celebration do to result in such horrifying consequences? All these lobby groups seemed so sure, and were wasting no expense in trying to end our ceremony.
Luckily, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary offered a hint to help me pinpoint what the source of the problem could be. My upcoming wedding, he announced to a forum called “Let’s Talk About Children’s Rights,” was “the worst betrayal of children’s rights I’ve ever seen; even more so than the Catholic church sex scandals.”
Children! How could I have missed it? This was truly a disaster, and I fear that all of it was, indeed, my fault. Having approved one of our reception’s meal options without having inspected it personally, I couldn’t be certain that the side dish wasn’t, in fact, made of children. In retrospect, this seems like an odd choice for a restaurant to have offered me in the first place, but I should have inquired more closely about the Succulent Rack of Soylent Chops before adding it to the menu. And now, with only a week to go, I can’t make any changes or substitutions.
It’s an inexcusable oversight, if it turns out to be true, but an oversight nonetheless. To play it safe, my fiancé and I will do our very best to alert guests that one of the meal options may possibly be made of children. This will hopefully deter our guests from consuming too many.
So, with that taken care of, I have this to say to the lobby groups: Kindly buzz off. My wedding is none of your business; you have no stake in it, and your attempts to suggest otherwise don’t hold water. So leave us—and everyone else celebrating their commitments to each other—alone.
Australian MP Wants His “Gay” Back
Same-sex marriage has been a fact of life in Canada for so long now that many of us have long forgotten the silly hysteria that led up to it. Yet, alas, anyone reading future history books will find that the mere discussion of allowing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples had prompted all kinds of vitriol about homosexuality in general throughout media and politics.
And so I draw your attention to Australia, which is currently entering the same silly throes that inevitably lead up to our equal rights.
Bob Katter, an independent MP, made all sorts of attention for himself last week when he declared that same-sex marriage deserves to be “laughed at and ridiculed.” An odd assertion on its own, but it was his comments on English semantics that elicit some very special ridicule today.
Speaking to supporters in front of the media, Katter waxed nostalgic about the time when the word gay meant “cheerful.” Quoting some old poetry, Katter called it “one of the most beautiful words in the English language,” before finally lashing out at gays: “No one has the right to take that word off us!”
Poor, poor Katter. Such trauma. Such injustice. What words are left for him to use in place of gay? Besides happy. And nice. And cheerful… Jolly, chipper, glad, jaunty, upbeat, lively, merry, pleasant, sunny, rosy, perky—you know what? I’ll just refer him to a thesaurus.
You see, no one has actually taken the word gay from anyone. There weren’t any regulating body offices for us gays to storm, after all. And dictionaries only ever report on existing usage patterns. No, the meaning of gay, like many, many other words, changed organically, evolving from popular usage. Gay people might have started using the word as a secret code in the 1960s to refer to each other, but it was the heterosexual majority that popularized that code into its full, modern meaning.
Of course, all this sentiment for the old meaning of gay is disingenuous to begin with. We clearly haven’t lost any expressive capabilities in this specific instance (again, please consult your thesaurus), and I highly doubt anyone could argue that changing words are inherently problematic. (When’s the last time you saw anyone lament that “terrific” no longer means “terror-inducing?”)
Here’s what Katter’s real beef is: The man resents homosexuality and doesn’t want any “nice” words to refer to us. People like Katter thinks they should be the ones who should decide what to call us. Well, tough beans, Katter. You already have an ample selection of nasty words for us at your disposal. I assume you’ve used them in private, and would be very interested to see if you’re ever brazen enough to use them in public.
Not to suggest that word gay will never change meanings again. English evolves, after all, but I expect that’ll only happen to “gay” again when gay people are finally fully accepted for who they are. One day, when there aren’t old coots like Katter around who are afraid of being associated—even fleetingly—with all things gay simply by using the word in other contexts, perhaps, then, other contexts will emerge. Until then, here’s a very special word that accurately describes Katter, and whose meaning has also changed radically within the past few decades: Douchebag.
United States Inches Toward Real Freedom
Well, I’m back from my vacation abroad, so let’s start up again with some short, but welcome news! New York officially started issuing same-sex marriage licenses yesterday, just days after President Barack Obama certified the end of the military’s silly “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that banned openly gay citizens from serving in the country.
Hundreds of New Yorkers lined up patiently to get their marriage certificates on Sunday, many of whom had waited for decades. The first couple to get their certificate was Phyllis Siegel, 77, and Connie Kopelov, 85, who have spent the last 23 years of their life together. The total number of marriage licenses issued the first day totaled 659, a new record for the state. A great day for the institution of marriage!
The official repeal of the ban on openly gay people in the army will happen on September 20th.
Congratulations to everyone who helped fight for both of these important steps in getting full equality. Keep it up, and soon everyone in the States will get the freedom they were promised!
- Hundreds of New York gay couples exchange vows [CBC News]
- Obama officially ends ban on gays in military [CBC News]
And Now, A Warning From Canada
So, I hear that New York State has finally legalized same-sex marriage. That’s fantastic news!
Throughout the debate, however, many people were wondering aloud about the consequences—both direct and indirect—that should be expected. Some of the predictions are downright dire.
I think I can chime in here. The first legal same-sex marriages in Canada happened in 2003, eight years ago—and it’s been nearly six years since Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide via parliamentary vote. In that sense, looking at Canada is a little bit like looking into the future. I think, therefore, that I should warn all you New Yorkers about the consequences that same-sex marriage will bring.
For easy reference and discussion, I’ve compiled each consequence into an exhaustive, numbered list. New York will experience each of these consequences, and I encourage other states to think long and hard about each of the items on this list before deciding to go down the path of same-sex marriage as well.
So, without further ado, if you’re ready, I present the complete of consequences of legal same-sex marriage:
- Same-sex couples can marry.
There you go. Now no one can say that they haven’t been informed.
Congratulations, again, to all my friends in New York. Keep fighting, and all the other states will follow!
Tories Raise The Spectre Of A Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Well, that didn’t take very long, did it?
Just weeks after Canada’s federal election, delegates at the Conservative Party Convention have raised a dead social issue over the weekend, discussing and voting on a resolution to ban same-sex marriage in Canada.
While a same-sex marriage ban had already been official Conservative Party policy, delegates readily voted to re-affirm it, adding in new measures that would let religious organisations deny facilities and services to same-sex couples. The resolution also included a wording change to clarify that this is Conservative Party policy, and not necessarily official government policy. The latter change was likely the government’s attempt to distance itself from contentious social issues early in their mandate, although it’s now perfectly clear what the party’s goals are overall.
So, what does all this mean for the GLBT community in Canada? First, that Canada’s governing party is not here for you. This is hardly a surprise, considering the party’s history of hostility toward GLBT citizens, but with Stephen Harper’s attempts to paint the Conservatives as Canada’s new, natural governing party, a lot of people have forgotten the party’s social conservative roots.
More worryingly, though, the overwhelming support of this resolution from within the party suggests that a backbencher’s bill to ban same-sex marriage, if introduced, would easily find the numbers required to pass, even if the government would rather keep it off the agenda.
Now, with nine consecutive provincial court rulings affirming that equal marriage is a right guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a bill to rescind these rights would face some—shall we say—difficulties. So, let’s put on our cowboy boots for a moment and imagine what, exactly, would be required here.
First, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban. The government is in a position to appoint judges that could dissent from the individual provincial courts’ longstanding consensus, and could conceivably do just that. Perhaps weirder, even if the Supreme Court sided with the nine earlier court rulings in favour of equal marriage rights, an obscure constitutional clause could be used by the government to strip them away anyway in five-year intervals without legal recourse.
This isn’t unheard of. In late 2000, Alberta’s Progressive Conservative government, under the leadership of Ralph Klein, invoked Section 33 of the Charter—the Notwithstanding Clause—to ban same-sex marriage in the province. By using this clause, the government effectively acknowledged that their law violated the Charter of Rights, but allowed it to remain on the books completely immune from court challenges for a period of five years (at which point they would have had the option pass it again). The only reason the government didn’t invoke the clause a second time in 2005 was because marriage is federal jurisdiction and by that time Paul Martin’s Liberal government had already granted equal marriage rights to citizens nationwide.
Today, Canada’s federal government is formed by a party in support of banning same-sex marriage, and the Notwithstanding clause is available at their discretion. So, despite challenges, they could absolutely take away your right to marry if they wanted.
Now, are any of these doomsday scenarios likely? I’m going to say no. If I had to bet on it, I’d say the government’s desire to stay in power outweighs the cries from their base to force the wedding ring off my finger. Use of the Notwithstanding clause would likely appear mean-spirited and unpopular to the Canadian public, and it would be unusual for the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn nine consecutive lower court rulings—certainly a phenomenon for the history books.
Nonetheless, the fact that there is landslide majority support within Canada’s governing party to venture down this path re-confirms what I’ve always suspected: The Conservative Party is full of giant douches. So hold on to your hats, kids! Even if all this party policy nonsense turns out to be the idle threats that I suspect they are, I still foresee four years of obnoxious barium saline suspension waves coming our way. Yuck.
- Tories reject leadership vote rule changes [CBC News]
Florist Refuses Flowers To Lesbian Couple
A New Brunswick florist is refusing to provide flowers to a couple on their wedding day because they’re lesbians.
Kim Evans, owner of the Petals and Promises, wrote a letter to the couple declaring that she would, under no circumstances, sell them flowers. “As a born-again Christian,” she wrote, “I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter.”
So, God forbids selling commercial products to gay people now?
Well, I guess everyone’s free to horribly misinterpret their religion—except it’s illegal in New Brunswick to deny business to anyone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. And that’s just as it should be, otherwise society can just go back to putting up “no coloreds,” “no Jews,” and “no pansies” signs in their windows. (Well, unless a shop happens to be sold out of pansies.)
The couple’s wedding planner, Mario Bourgeois Leduc, has brought Ms. Evan’s behaviour to the attention of the media because he was particularly disturbed by the incident. “Even though people think discrimination and homophobia is almost nill, that is not the reality,” he told QMI agency yesterday. “That negativity is there from Day One if you’re a same-sex couple planning the most important day of your life.”
Indeed, gay people put up with a lot more nonsense than most people realize. Under no circumstances should anyone be afraid of being denied public services—be they flowers, an apartment, lodging, or anything else—simply because of who they are. Yet it remains a real fear for gay people.
So, to Ms. Evans:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
You’re a douche
A giant douche.
Have a great weekend, kids!
Thanks to everyone who sent me this story!
Conservative MP Blasts Court For Equal Rights Ruling
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that civil marriage commissioners—individuals licensed by the government to perform non-religious civil marriage ceremonies—cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.
Saskatchewan’s government, under premier Brad Wall, had asked the court for advice on two proposed bills. One would have allowed marriage commissioners to deny public services to gay couples, and the other would have allowed only marriage commissioners licensed before the legalization of same-sex marriage to do so. Both proposals were ruled unconstitutional.
This decision was expected and right. Marriage commissioners are there to perform non-religious, legal ceremonies and are not representatives of their privately held religious beliefs. Allowing a public service employee to refuse their duties based on the sexual orientation of their clients would have been unprecedented, opening a can of writhing, slimy worms as to what other services can be denied to the public.
Not everyone is content with the court’s ruling, of course. Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP (who has been on this site before, imagine that), angrily blasted the court decision on Tuesday. “The Court has hereby belittled religious faith or any faith for that matter,” he announced, hereby, in a press interview. “It sets up a hierarchy of rights saying these same-sex rights are more important than freedom of consience and religion.”
Utter nonsense, of course. No one, not even gays, are allowed to deny public services to anyone legally entitled to those services. That right never existed, and this ruling hasn’t changed it. Religious freedom, also, still exists in Canada. Everyone is free to worship whichever religion they choose.
So, if you believe that a gaggle of motley-clad deities mandates that all moral humans must get their left nipple pierced by an 84-year-old former acrobat upon graduating high school and have it fastened with a pewter-cast triskaidecagon, then by all means, go for it. But that doesn’t mean you get to go around denying boating licenses to anyone who has their pewter-cast triskaidecagon through their right nipple instead of their left.
At least, I think so. Technically, that court decision is still pending.
- Marriage officials can’t refuse gays: Sask. court [CBC News]
- MP blasts Sask. court for gay marriage decision [Toronto SUN]
Immigration Rules Tightened For Gay Couples
Gay Canadians who were married to foreign partners in embassies will only be able to sponsor their spouse for Canadian citizenship if the host country recognizes same-sex marriage, according to recent changes in immigration policy.
Immigration officials said there was a high demand for same-sex sponsorships in 2010, which required a tightening of the policy to close a “possible loophole.”
This change is a little odd. For one, marriage isn’t a requirement for a Canadian to sponsor their partner for citizenship. According to Canada’s immigration guide, common-law partners, even gay ones, are fully recognized. All that’s required is to be in a codependent relationship for a year, and whether or not a spouse’s country of residence has equal marriage rights doesn’t change that.
Moreover, what “loophole” exists here that doesn’t for straight couples? Marriages of convenience are undoubtedly a problem, but this policy change just thwarts gay short-term marriages of convenience while leaving the door to straight ones wide open—and surely the latter is the bigger problem here. I mean, sure, we gays are fond of mail order catalogues, but the return policies are far too limited to find fiancés that way.
Update, January 13th: According to some sharp investigation by Xtra, the CIC’s embassy marriage rules are not recent at all, having been in place for ages. There’s no explanation as to why the Toronto SUN reported the change as recent, nor as to why they attributed the change as a means to close a “loophole.” Nevertheless, I still think the specific mention of same-sex marriage legality in the CIC’s rules is bizarre. Inconsistent, too, considering that straight marriages are legal everywhere. After all, if the benefit of sponsoring a married spouse over a common-law partner is to take advantage of a shorter codependency period, then straight couples can use (or abuse) this advantage more readily than gay ones.
- Canada toughens gay marriage immigration checks [Toronto SUN]
- Sponsoring your family: Who can apply [CIC]
Texas Forces Gay Couple To Stay Married
An appeals court in Texas has ruled that a gay couple who married out of state can not get divorced.
The couple, who married each other four years ago while living in Massachusetts, are now forced to remain legally married unless they move back to Massachusetts and get a divorce there. While a lower court initially granted the divorce, it was appealed by the state’s Attorney General on the claim that granting a divorce would lead to same-sex marriage.
So, there you go; forcing a gay couple to stay married is now a state strategy in keeping same-sex marriage illegal. It’s almost logical, I suppose… like stopping a kid from smoking by forcing him to finish an entire pack of cigarettes. Or something.
Texas, of course, doesn’t recognize equal marriage rights. What the state was really afraid of is that granting a divorce would essentially amount to having recognized the marriage. It’s a bit of absurd paranoia, if you ask me. Particularly since equal marriage rights is an inevitability as more and more people shed their fears and prejudices about gay people. In the meantime, enjoy your forced marriage, anonymous couple. Texas is seeing to it!
- Court says gay couples can’t divorce in Texas [Associated Press]
Proposition 8 Was Discriminatory Nonsense
On Wednesday, just days after my wedding, a federal judge declared that California’s Proposition 8—a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage—violated the constitutional rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens.
I couldn’t be happier. Canada got its first taste of equal marriage rights in 2003, and eventually recognized it nationwide in 2005. Knowing that so many people south of the border will soon share the same joy and freedoms that we have up here makes me giddy with anticipation.
Californians still have to wait a little while before enjoying their full legal equality, mind you. Anti-gay lobbyists have already appealed the decision and a temporary stay has been put into effect, possibly until a decision is reached there. I don’t know enough about the U.S. justice system to offer a prediction of the outcome, but I do think that the anti-equality side simply hasn’t demonstrated arguments that can hold up to court scrutiny. After all, according to them, Canada should be a smoking crater by now. Of course, in reality, nothing bad has come of it by any demonstrable standard.
California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has both filed formal motions to lift California’s stay, which would reintroduce full equality immediately. Until then, congratulations to California for your important step toward the full equality that your constitution guarantees!
- California judge rejects same-sex marriage ban [CBC News]
- California gay marriage ruling appealed [CBC News]
- Schwarzenegger urges gay weddings revival [CBC News]
Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
Argentina has become the first Latin American country (and the tenth country overall) to permit full, equal marriage to all its citizens. The vote, which passed 33-27, took place Thursday morning.
Opponents had hoped to instead pass a separate, and inherently unequal, civil unions bill that would have granted most of the rights of marriage to gay couples, but would have barred them from adopting children or even undergoing in-vitro fertilization (an astonishing personal rights invasion, if I ever heard one). Good thing full equality passed instead!
I really don’t have much else to say but congratulations, Argentina!
- Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote [Associated Press]
