|Thursday, October 5th, 2006|
Why are we revisiting this issue?
Why are there people who believe that they should be able to prevent others from getting married in a civil ceremony?
Why is the Globe and Mail running another poll? "We've asked this before but the federal Conservatives keep bringing the question up: Do you approve of same-sex marriage?"
Why are the results no 63 to yes 37? Is it because people expect the yes answer to be first?
|Friday, July 15th, 2005|
COURSE: The Battle Over the Courts: What's at Stake?
Young People For Announces Online Course for College Students on the Court Battle
With Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's announced retirement, the process to appoint her successor will dominate the news in the coming months. With Justice O'Connor's role providing the swing vote on critical 5-4 decisions regarding privacy, reproductive rights, affirmative action, government neutrality toward religion, and more, her replacement will have a profound impact on the direction of American law and society.
In this 6-week online course in our Progressive Online Academy we will examine the substance of what's at stake in detail and hear from activists on the political front lines. Return to campus in the fall energized and informed to fight back against the right wing echo chamber on your campus.
Tentative Schedule - week of …
July 25: Right Wing Nominees: Who are They and What do They Believe?
August 1: The Environment
August 8: Reproductive Rights
August 15: Civil Rights
August 22: Civil Liberties and Free Speech
August 29: Workers Rights and Corporate Power
The class will involve a few short readings distributed over email each week, online discussion, and a 1-hour weekly class conference call held from 4 – 5 PM EST each Thursday. To apply, send your NAME, SCHOOL, YEAR, and a short statement of interest to email@example.com by July 20. The course is open to current undergraduates in 2-year or 4-year degree programs.
x-posted some places
|Friday, February 11th, 2005|
This is from WSFA in Montgomery Alabama...
"On Tuesday, the debate on the same sex marriage ban went on for hours in the House of Representatives because some lawmakers were trying to delay the vote.
One even offered a challenge. Rep. Alvin Holmes, (D) Montgomery said "I've got $700.00 here, and I will give anyone this $700.00 if they come up and show me in this Bible where it says that marriage is between a man and a woman." "
Oh, this made my day!!
This man is usually an ass of the highest order, and a racial bigot to boot, but I could kiss him for this!!
Check out the whole story...http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2931871&nav=0RdEWF0f
|Friday, February 4th, 2005|
|Thursday, December 9th, 2004|
Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Same-Sex Marriage Questions
The Supreme Court of Canada issued their ruling on the same-sex marriage questions submitted by the government earlier this year. Its findings are:
- the Federal government has exclusive authority to define marriage. This basically means Alberta has to suck it up :-)
- The Charter of Rights protects the right of clergy to not perform same-sex marriages if their beliefs tell them not to
- the proposed legislation is constitutional
On the fourth question, whether the traditional "one man, one woman" definition is constitutional, the court said that wasn't a question a they should be answering. Basically they didn't want to pass a constitutional judgement on the status quo.
This gives the government the green light to introduce the proposed legislation, and they've indicated that they may do so as soon as January. Current Mood: Proud to be Canadian, eh!
|Friday, October 1st, 2004|
House Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban
By Helen Dewar
The House joined the Senate yesterday in refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, described by Republican supporters as a vital protection for traditional families but denounced by Democratic foes as a divisive pre-election ploy to inflame prejudice. ( From The Washington Post 10 Oct 2004 - More behind cutCollapse )
|Friday, September 24th, 2004|
|Thursday, September 16th, 2004|
Another province joins the club
A judge in Manitoba
found the current definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That makes four provinces and one territory, representing at least 60% of Canada's population, where same-sex marriage is now recognised. Go us!
|Saturday, August 7th, 2004|
The Yukon makes it four, and maybe more
Last month a Yukon Supreme Court judge has changed the definition of marriage in the Yukon
, making it the fourth Canadian province to recognise same-sex marriages.
What's interesting about this decision is that it may open up the gates in the rest of Canada. The reasoning is that federal government has already accepted same-sex marriage in three provinces. The definition of marriage is a federal responsibility, and it isn't acceptable that something defined by the federal government should have a different definition in some provinces than in others.
The Globe and Mail (registration required, sigh, and what the fuck is up with that?), has a commentary by David Peterson
which closes with this statement:
The ruling of the Yukon Supreme Court was a warning shot across the bow of the provinces and territories that do not yet recognize the right to civil marriage of same-sex couples. The decision says in no uncertain terms that they must begin doing so.
|Monday, July 12th, 2004|
Subject: Please help right away -- we've got to stick together
Congress is about to vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 48 hours.
It's urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in America. Please join me in saying so, at: http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/
Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can't let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love.
|Thursday, June 17th, 2004|
Support and Thanks Rally
for Judge Katz
on his favorable decision
Regarding Mayor West and Same Sex Marriages!
T O D A Y
Village of New Paltz Courthouse
25 Plattekill Ave.
To read Judge Katz's ruling, please ( click here.Collapse )
i just typed that whole thing, so excuse any typos.
|Saturday, March 27th, 2004|
Quebec says yes
The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled this week that same-sex couples have the right to marry. (CBC
This doesn't seem to have attracted the same attention as previous decisions, but between Ontario, Quebec, and BC, 70% of Canadians live in a province where same sex marriage is now a fact. Somehow I doubt that this particular genie can be put back in the bottle. It would be absurd to have different marriage laws in the three largest provinces.
Proposed federal legislation is currently awaiting review by the Supreme Court, which is currently scheduled for October. (Text of questions and draft legislation.
) This conveniently avoid embarassing the government during a spring election campaign, though l'affaire AdScam
seems to filling that gap nicely.
|Friday, January 23rd, 2004|
This is great. If you have been following that Family Association Marriage Poll thing, read this
. It's short. Current Mood: satisfied
|Thursday, January 15th, 2004|
|Wednesday, December 17th, 2003|
|Monday, December 8th, 2003|
Action required - pass it on
From an email I received from "Canadians for Equal Marriage"
ACT NOW! Equal marriage threatened
December 8, 2003
Equal marriage needs your help today. Paul Martin is on record as saying that he supports the government's decision not to appeal the historic court decisions allowing same-sex couples to marry. The CBC reported Thursday however that Paul
Martin is considering expanding the Supreme Court Reference to ask the Court if he can choose an option other than giving same-sex couples access to marriage itself.
Paul Martin will be meeting with his Liberal caucus this Wednesday (Dec. 10) at 1:00 pm, where this will be the hot topic.
Please contact Paul Martin and your MP before this meeting.
E-mail Mr. Martin and your MP (even if you don't know who your MP is) from our action website: www.equal-marriage.ca/mp.php. In addition, please call Martin at 613-992-4284 or 514-363-0954. Our experience shows that MPs pay most attention to phone calls.
WHY NOT CIVIL UNION?
If a "civil union" question is added to the Reference, it would amount to an appeal of the Ontario, B.C. and Quebec decisions. It would signal that the government is prepared to reverse its decision to let us marry. That it is
prepared to abandon true equality and give second-class status to same-sex couples.
In addition to being a dramatic abandonment of leadership (shown by Chretien), it can't help but give a morale boost to opponents of equal marriage.
Please let Paul Martin and your MP know that expanding the Reference is a bad idea, by visiting our action website www.equal-marriage.ca/mp.php. You can choose from our pre-written message, or compose your own, to let them know civil
union is not equality.
Paul Martin is on the record as saying that "separate but equal" is not an option. Our new Prime Minister should not begin his tenure by flip-flopping on basic equality for all Canadians.
Thanks in advance for your fast action!!
Canadians for Equal Marriage
PS: To view the CBC story: "Liberals say Martin wants to end same-sex marriage controversy": http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/04/samesex031204
. To view our fact sheet on Civil Union, visit: http:www.equal-marriage.ca/resources.php.
Then take action from our website: http://www.equal-marriage.ca/mp.php
|Wednesday, November 26th, 2003|
Canadian MP Beaten For Support Of Gay Marriage
Andy Scott, the member of Parliament for Fredericton and Canada's former Solicitor General, was assaulted by a man in his constituency office
after refusing to allow the man to put up posters in the office condemning same-sex marriage. Scott headed a House of Commons committee that endorsed same-sex unions, casting the tie-breaking vote to accept an Ontario court ruling that allowed allowed same-sex couples to marry.
|Tuesday, November 18th, 2003|
Mass. Supreme Court gets it right.
The highest court in Massachusetts said Tuesday that the state cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry, possibly paving the way for the state to become the first to legalize gay marriage.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."
It has ordered the legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to the couples who brought forth the case.
|Sunday, October 26th, 2003|
Marriage, Biblical style
This came in by email from a friend. I believe it merits careful and thoughtful consideration.
It was recently mentioned that the US Presidential Prayer Team is
currently urging Americans to: "Pray for the President as he seeks
wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that
it will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting
on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His
standards will be honored by our government."
I'm sure any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced
by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is
a proposed US Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage
shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his
wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.(Deut 22:13-21)
C. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
D. Since marriage is for life, neither the US
Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal
law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
E. If a married man dies without children, his brother
shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe
and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen.
38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10 )
The new Canadian Conservative Party will, I am sure, wish to urge the
same policy for Canada.
|Thursday, October 9th, 2003|