Canadians For Equal Marriage

[Diamond Sun]

I belong to a mailing list from "Canadians For Equal Marriage" and got this email today in my inbox. Seeing as I know most of you are openminded individuals, I thought I would post it, and hope that a few more people might email their MP's to support the right of Same Sex Marriage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadians for Equal Marriage

November 25, 2004

Act Now! ANTI-Equal Marriage Bill Update!

Last week we told you that Parliament may soon vote on legislation to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Private Members' Bill C-268, introduced by Rob Moore, (Con) for Fundy, NB, would define marriage as "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all other persons".

Thanks to you, over 700,000 e-mails have been sent to MPs through the Canadians for Equal Marriage (CEM) website. What an impact this has had!

Even though a Parliamentary Subcommittee ruled last week that the bill was unconstitutional, and therefore not eligible for a vote, CEM learned shortly afterwards that a deal had been made in August that would have seen this ruling overturned on an appeal by Rob Moore to the Procedures Committee. But thanks to all of our efforts, we convinced MPs this deal didn't apply to C-268!

Today, in a dramatic turn of events, MPs on the Procedures Committee upheld the ruling that Bill C-268 is unconstitutional and therefore non-voteable. Today, we proved that together we can make a real difference!

But the Anti-Equal Marriage Bill is not dead yet. Rob Moore still has one week to appeal the ruling to the entire House of Commons. If he succeeds, then the bill could still become law. It's too close to call.

That's why we're asking you to keep spreading the word and contacting MPs to let them know that they should not support this unconstitutional bill.

Opponents of equal marriage are still lobbying MPs in support of this
legislation. Focus on the Family is still mobilizing thousands of equal marriage opponents to email and call their MPs in support of Bill C-268. We need to make sure that theirs is not the only message that is heard.

If Parliament passes Bill C-268, it will be legal chaos, and our right to marry will be in jeopardy across the country.

Now is the time to keep up the stream of e-mails to MPs, telling them to uphold the Charter and the Canadian values it represents by voting down Bill C-268.

Please contact your MP now!

E-mail your MP from our action website: www.equal-marriage.ca. Just click on Step 1: MP Action, and go from there. You don't need to know who your MP is. Allyou need is your postal code and our action website will find your MP.

In addition to e-mailing, please call your MP. Their phone number is also listedon our action website. Our experience shows that MPs pay most attention to phone calls.

Please tell your Family and Friends!

We must continue to flood MP offices with emails and calls telling them to vote down Bill C-268. This Bill flies in the face of the Charter and in un-Canadian!
Click on Step 4: Invite a Friend where you can send equal marriage supporters and email asking them to visit the CEM website and
contact their MPs.

Thanks in advance for your continued fast action!!

Laurie Arron
Political Coordinator
Canadians for Equal Marriage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!!

 

[peapod]

That is great diamond sun, I have already done this myself, I have many gay friends. I hope everyone at this board contacts their mp, it does not take alot of effort and every message counts.

 

[Andem]

I will help out, too.

Though there's no way the provincial rulings can be overruled since they are for equal rights... there would be a huge uproar! Contacting MP...

 

[LadyC]

One thing I don't get...
Why do the folks who are against this always say, "Sure, I believe in equal rights. Give them the benefits and all, but let them come up with their own name... calling it marriage will destroy family values."

What the heck difference does it make?!?

And... why is the next question always, "What's next? If we allow SSMs, what's to stop people from marrying their father/sister/mother/etc.? Or polygamy? Or what about the person who wants to marry his goat?"

I bet these people's grandparents used the same tired arguments to protest giving women the vote, too.

 

[Diamond Sun]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal Marriage

"What's next? If we allow SSMs, what's to stop people from marrying their father/sister/mother/etc.? Or polygamy? Or what about the person who wants to marry his goat?"

I bet these people's grandparents used the same tired arguments to protest giving women the vote, too.

I know Lady C. It's so ridiculous. It was probably the same too when interacial marriages were at the forefront. The world and society are constantly evolving, and I don't see how that can ever be a bad thing.

My brother put me onto this organization, and I'm glad he did. One day, I'd love to go to his wedding.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

We have gay marriage back here for what is it, two, three years now? And to be honest, hetero-sexual marriage is still the same, family values haven't changed but - and that's the change - many gay people are happy now for having the right to marry and show their love for each other.

 

[LadyC]

How does this work, anyway? If he comes to B.C. and gets married, is it recognized in a not-yet-enlightened province?

 

[Diamond Sun]

I'm not sure LadyC. He lives in Alberta, and I know Klein is dead set against SSM, so if he comes to BC to marry, I'm pretty sure it's not recognized if/when he goes back to Alberta.

I just read an interesting Essay that had some statistics on Canadians and whether they support gay marriage or not.

In the Age group 18-34 a whopping almost 70% (both males and females) were in Support. 35-54 ran around 55% support in males and 62% support in females, and then you get the +55 age bracket which has less that 45% support. Interesting to see how the younger generations are accepting change as part of life while the older generations are sticking to their traditional definitions.

 

[LadyC]

It also makes me wonder what issues I'll be dead-set against when I move to the next age bracket!

 

[sj007]

im joinin up btw wasnt quebec at the forfront of SSM ?

 

[no1important]

As a straight happily married male I don't understand what the fuss over gay marriage is. If two people love each other reguardless of sexual orientation and want to get married. Let them.

Let them get the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. I can't think of one good reason why "any couple" should not. It will make us a stronger country. Gay marriage is legal in majority of Canada and soon to be all of Canada (Yes Ralph Klein it will be legal in Alberta sooner than later, most all courts have agreed and the Supreme court of Canada will totally legalize it, if Parliement does not)and the Sun still comes up every morning and the moon comes out every night. To me it is not an issue. I guess it is only an issue for right wingers. If Churches don't want to marry same sex couples that is there decision (and narrow mindness) But legal civil marriage should always be an option.

Plus gay marriage, possible changes to pot laws etc, show the world what a real free and democratic country we are, and that unlike America[that votes and legalizes discrimmination] we do not discriminate against anyone- sexual orientation, race etc. We should be proud we are the world leaders in equality and hopefully the rest of the world follows our examples. We are truly the greatest nation in the world and we are free 'er than America.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

The second greatest nation in the world that is :mrgreen:

 

[Numure]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

We have same-sex marriage in Québec, ma chère.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

It's legal in...I think 7 provinces and 1 territory now, or maybe it's 7 jurisdictions. The feds would be crazy to try and go backwards on this now.

I'm still trying to figure out why this is an issue. It should be topping the yawn meter...right up there with Stripper-gate. Why can't people just mind their own damned business?

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal M

It's legal in...I think 7 provinces and 1 territory now, or maybe it's 7 jurisdictions. The feds would be crazy to try and go backwards on this now.

I'm still trying to figure out why this is an issue. It should be topping the yawn meter...right up there with Stripper-gate. Why can't people just mind their own damned business?

The feds will never be able to force this on Québec. No matter if its a conservative or Liberal Goverment. It would be a breach in the constitution, the original one anyways. We never learned the revised one...

 

[Omega]

Let me give you my opinion as a senior on SSM...I feel that whatever the mix, M/F, F/F, M/M, if they want to live together it's OK by me. I do not like that SSM is using the term "marriage" for living together, mostly because "marriage" has always meant a legal bond between a male and a female. It is not easy for people of my vintage to accept that gays actually want to be married, it's too new and too different from what we've thought of as "normal" for all our lives.

Also, to be truthful, we have some deep feelings that gays are despicable and do creepy things to each other, and not in the least what we think of as normal.

I do hate the thought of two people of the same sex actually raising children. Loving as they may be, those children are going to grow up not knowing what either a male or a female parent is like. I believe that children need both a male and a female parent to guide them in their own very different ways, otherwise the child will never know how a male and a female parent shows their love and devotion in their own way.

Right now here in Canada there is a court case where a lesbian and her former mate, who were married, had a child by artificial insemination by the former boyfriend of one of the lesbians, and they are now divorcing and fighting for custody over the child, not only between the two lesbians, but also with the sperm donor of the child involved. This presents a very ugly mess for all of them, including the child.

I know that I have old-fashioned ideas, but I stick to them because they are what I believe.

To me, and to many of my contemporaries, marriage between two of the same sex is a theft of the word "marriage", which along with the use of the word "gay", which used to mean happy, is more than we want to put up with.

Even though I had an unhappy marriage myself and have divorced my husband long ago, I still respect the institution of marriage between a male and a female. I see many happy marriages around me amongst the unhappy ones, and would dearly love to be one of those old couples who walk hand in hand and enjoy each others' company. That to me is what marriage is all about. It is not about two men who hug and kiss each other in public, or two women who walk arms around each other--somehow it seems too indecent and too impermanent to take seriously. It is more a curiosity and a deviant than a normal relationship, although I freely admit that hetero marriages very often do not last either...

Feel free to give your opinions about my views on this, I don't mind at all...

 

[Cosmo]

Feel free to give your opinions about my views on this, I don't mind at all...

Oh dear, Omega, you have put out an invitation I am unable to resist. I recently spent time reading through a conservative right-wing forum where this was a very hot topic. The attitudes and opinions expressed there scared the sh*t out of me … these right wing fanatics are truly dangerous. The bigotry extends far beyond this one issue, but to hear the kind of arguments posed was shades of Hitler.

Ok, to address your arguments … which are familiar to me as a very out-of-the-closet lesbian.

"marriage" has always meant a legal bond between a male and a female

Uh huh. And before 1929, “vote” always meant men only. And “negro” (or the other “n” word) meant slave. I could go on and on. What I find most interesting about this argument is that these definitions are not particularly new. If it is definition and semantics that pose the problem, following history a little further back you will find that homosexuality was not just acceptable, but even revered in some societies. The “two spirited people” were considered holy in some native cultures, for example. Bigotry is newer than persecution, actually.

Also, to be truthful, we have some deep feelings that gays are despicable and do creepy things to each other, and not in the least what we think of as normal.

Oh ya, the old “it makes me shudder to think about what they do together” contention. News flash … when I think about a couple of 80 year old heteros having sex, it’s not a pretty mental image either. Or when I think about some things heteros of any age do together, it repulses me as well. Once I had a guy in a bar try to convince me that the male appendage was a very wonderful thing. When I suggested I would put one in my mouth if he did, I seem to have won the argument hands down.

What people do in bed is their own business. Why do you think about it? When you look at your best friend or your minister, do you think about what they do in bed? Is this obsession some kind of straight thing? I don’t get it. Unless I am sleeping with someone, I rarely think about their sexual activities or proclivities. It just doesn’t come up for me.

… would dearly love to be one of those old couples who walk hand in hand and enjoy each others' company. That to me is what marriage is all about. It is not about two men who hug and kiss each other in public, or two women who walk arms around each other--somehow it seems too indecent and too impermanent to take seriously.

Indecent? I don’t want to see any two people, whatever the gender, deep throat kissing at the local Starbucks. It’s a matter of propriety. But to display affection in public, again regardless of gender, cannot be labeled indecent simply because you have a prejudice against it. As for impermanent, I don’t understand the correlation. How do you divine which relationships are will last and which won’t? I’ve known homosexual couples who have been together decades. They are those little old couples walking hand in hand!

To me, and to many of my contemporaries, marriage between two of the same sex is a theft of the word "marriage", which along with the use of the word "gay", which used to mean happy, is more than we want to put up with.

Words do, indeed, carry a significant amount of power. I’ve heard the line of reasoning that says, “call it something other than marriage and I will be ok with it”. I disagree. Over the past decade the homosexual population has begun to reclaim the language once co-opted by the bigots. I proudly consider myself a dyke, a lesbo, a queer. Reclaiming these words for ourselves has empowered us and removed a tool from the arsenal of bigots. To enforce homosexuals to use a word other than “marriage” is just a sly form of discrimination. Marriage is marriage. How does my personal life diminish yours in any way? I don’t see the connection.

I consider myself happily married, although I don’t have the papers to prove it. My partner and I share every basic tenet of a good and loving relationship. No matter what name you put to it, it meets the emotional and commitment criteria of marriage.

The idea that homosexuals are some kind of predatory miscreants is patently absurd. Most pedophiles are heterosexual. I can research that for you if you like and direct you to statistical evidence readily available. The vast majority of homosexuals I know have no interest in “converting” straight people nor interest in sleeping with them, yet a great many men I have met in my life think they had the “cure” for my lesbianism right there in their trousers.

The issue of SSM is, as the Rev put it so well, “right there at the top of the yawn meter”. With failing health care, poverty, education cutbacks, environmental destruction etc. etc. etc., why do our politicos want to focus so stridently on whether I choose to live with a man or a woman? It seems way out of proportion to me. Another political diversion to keep us from looking at the real issues that need to be addressed in this country, maybe?

Well, Omega, you invited and I obliged. And as vehemently as I disagree with your views, I do defend your right to express them, no matter how narrow I deem them to be. Ain’t freedom a wonderful thing? :wink:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is even an issue, and I'm ..uh, well, moderately old, part of the demographic that generates most of the strongest objections to SSM. I've never seen a cogent objection to it that isn't essentially religiously based, and as an unrepentant old atheist those arguments go right by me.

Marriage is a civil contract in western culture, administered in this country by provincial authority. Religion doesn't really enter into it, so any objection by religious authorities about being forced to do things contrary to their beliefs is a red herring. Nobody needs to be married in a church and nobody's suggested religious institutions will be forced by law to perform SSM ceremonies. All you need is a few minutes in a judge's chambers.

The most common objection, about destroying the sanctity of marriage, I find hard to take seriously. Looked at any statistics on marriage breakdowns lately? Seems to me the heterosexuals have done a pretty job of destroying the sanctity of marriage.

All that's proposed is changing the definition of a word, marriage, to mean a particular kind of civil contract between two people, leaving out the qualification that they must be of different genders. The slippery slope argument, that assumes all kinds of adverse consequences will follow without offering any reason to think so, like people marrying their livestock or something, is a well known logical fallacy, and most such arguments I find laughable.

And this is all without getting into any of the deeper philosophical issues of sex and gender (and no they're not the same thing, and there are more than two of them), and the extent to which sex and gender roles are social constructs that trap us all in stereotypes.

And finally, Cosmo: you deserve commendation for a spirited, articulate, and fair-minded expression of your views.

Dex

 

[peapod]

I agree with you Dex cosmos is that and much more, thats why she has been one of my closest friends for 20 years. I consider myself very lucky, but so does she...but we are not going to marry. I am the straight one :wink: But I will be more than willing to give her away when and if the that day comes 8)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

You'd give away you best friend? Doesn't sound very friendly to me....;-)