Breaking News! Quebec Court Rules Gays Can Marry

[Boston Guy]

(Montreal, Quebec) Quebec's highest court Thursday joined Ontario and British Columbia in ruling that the federal government's definition of marriage is unconstitutional and that same-sex couples were entitled to marry.

 

The Court of Appeal upheld a lower-court ruling that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory and unjustified. That ruling had been challenged by both the Federal government and an umbrella group of conservative churches.

 

The full article can be read here:

 

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/031904queMarry.htm

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

This makes me wonder...where does the U.S. now rank in the world as far as civil rights? How many countries are currently more progressive and democratic?

[trilingual]

Lots of countries are as or more progressive and democratic than the U.S. (in spite of what troglodytes like Doug69 believe). The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada now permit same-sex marriage. France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries permit civil unions.

 

All of those countries are more progressive than the U.S. in terms of the health, welfare and social benefits they provide their residents. It has been a very long time indeed (if ever) that gay sex was illegal in those countries. In most (if not all) of those countries prostitution is also legal. In many of those countries, drug use has been decriminalized and is treated as a medical, not a criminal problem. Contrast that to the U.S.

 

Even in supposedly conservative and reactionary Catholic countries like Spain, Brazil and Argentina, local governments, the courts, and legislatures are dealing progressively with the issue of same-sex relationships (as examples, the city of Buenos Aires has established a registry for civil unions, and the courts in Brazil have been extending many of the rights straight couples have to same-sex relationships). It's probable that in the next few years gays will be able to marry civilly. Prostitution is legal in all three of those countries. Compare that to the situation in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." I don't want to be misleading by implying that same-sex marriage issues aren't controversial in these countries. They are. But they haven't engendered anything close to the apocalyptic apoplexy the subject causes in the U.S. Prostitution is so old-hat nobody talks about it, except when it deals with prostitution by minors, which IS a big issue in Brazil, at least.

 

Quebec's move is terrifically encouraging, because it's a predominantly Catholic province that was practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Church less than a generation ago! What Quebec does is extremely influential in the Latin countries that operate under civil law because its Civil Code (which governs marriage and family law, among other things) is probably the most modern and progressive in the world. Other civil law countries (like Brazil) have looked to Quebec when reforming and updating their own Civil Codes. The latest decision means that the progressive marriage provisions of the Quebec Civil Code will apply to persons married there. That will inevitably have a major impact on legal thinking in other civil law countries from France to Argentina.

 

Except in the U.S. (and even in the U.S. there are exceptions) the march of progress is towards recognizing the civil rights of gay people and towards formally recognizing our relationships as marriages. Eventually the U.S. will be standing alone in its opposition, and will have to give in to what's happening everywhere else in the civilized world. It wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has had to get real and join the rest of the world. Remember Prohibition? :+

[Doug69]

>This makes me wonder...where does the U.S. now rank in the

>world as far as civil rights?

 

By "civil rights," do you myopically mean "gay rights"? If not, how are any countries more advanced than the U.S. with regard to laws guaranteeing equal protection of its citizens based on race, gender, religion, national origin, etc?

 

>Howmany countries are

>currently more progressive and democratic?

 

"Progressive" just means "liberal," so that's a meaningless question. How are any countries more "democratic" than the U.S.? It's ironic that the court decisions you are celebrating are ones where a MINORITY opinion trumps a majority opinion, and that laws which are enacted by a MAJORITY are ones that you think make the U.S. "anti-democratic."

 

In case you haven't noticed, our elected officials are elected by the citizens and laws are enacted by those officials. That's the very definition of democracy. How could other countries be more "democratic"? Because they have more judges who strike down more democratically enacted laws?

[Guest houseboy]

>In case you haven't noticed, our elected officials are elected

>by the citizens and laws are enacted by those officials.

>That's the very definition of democracy. How could other

>countries be more "democratic"? Because they have more judges

>who strike down more democratically enacted laws?

 

Well, unfortunately, some countries are not democratic anymore because the U.S. has had issues with their democratically elected leaders and instrumented their being replaced by someone less democratic, but more amenable to U.S. interests abroad. Haiti and Congo anyone?

 

 

Sean Lespagnol

Chicago, IL

http://www.seanlespagnol.com

 

"Big and tasty - every day!"

[Doug69]

>Lots of countries are as or more progressive and democratic

>than the U.S. (in spite of what troglodytes like Doug69

>believe).

 

"Progressive" just means liberal, so who cares if other countries are more "progressive"? That assumes liberalism is tantamount to freedom, and it isn't. As for other countries being more "democratic" than the U.S., that's just stupid. Elected officials in the U.S. are elected by the nation's citizens, and our laws are enacted by those elected officials. It doesn't get any more democratic than that.

 

The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada now permit

>same-sex marriage. France, Germany and the Scandinavian

>countries permit civil unions.All of those countries are more progressive than the U.S. in terms of the health, welfare and social benefits they provide their residents.

 

There is always a direct trade-off between how much the Government provides to its needy citizens and how much economic liberty the Government allows its citizens to have. All you're saying is that the countries you named are more economically liberal because they confiscate more of their rich citizens' wealth and distribute more of it to their poor citizens. I know this will confuse you, but such liberal economic policies aren't the same as freedom and liberty; they are the opposite.

 

>It has been a very long time indeed (if

>ever) that gay sex was illegal in those countries.

 

I don't know if word has reached the Rio bathhouses yet, but gay sex isn't illegal in the United States either. Most states long ago repealed their anti-sodomy laws, and then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws in the few remaining states which still had (but virtually never enforced) them.

 

>Prostitution is legal in all three of those

>countries. Compare that to the situation in the "land of the

>free and the home of the brave."

 

Philosphers and poltiical scientists in the last 3 centuries have absurdly thought that political liberties dealt with how much liberty citizens have in the realms of political speech, press freedom, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, due process rights -- all things guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But no, Trilingual is here to tell us that True Freedom is not about those insignficiant things, but instead, is really about whether he can hire hookers and smoke weed without breaking unenforced laws.

 

So, he "reasons," since the U.S. has anti-prostitution and anti-drug laws on its books, the country isn't really free, even though its Constitution guarantees all of those other rights. And countries where those other rights aren't guaranteed are the True Bastion of Freedom, because in those countries, you get to hire cock to fuck you in a bathhouse while you're high and you won't go to jail for it. So that's REAL freedom.

 

That's what happens when you structure your whole life - including the country in which you reside - around base, hedonistic pleasures. You start confusing issues relating to the convenience with which you can get your cock hard with important matters of political liberty. That is really sad.

[Doug69]

>Well, unfortunately, some countries are not democratic anymore

>because the U.S. has had issues with their democratically

>elected leaders and instrumented their being replaced by

>someone less democratic, but more amenable to U.S. interests

>abroad. Haiti and Congo anyone?

 

This is such a good point, "Houseboy." Haiti and Congo had such a rich, prosperous history of democracy and according civil rights to all of their citizens until the Fascist U.S. started intervening and ruining the Political Paradises which previously existed in those charmed lands. There is absolutely no doubt that if anyone wants to know why Haiti and Congo are undemocratic, the only answer is: the United States. Without the U.S., those countries would be the very embodiment of what the Federalist Papers envisioned.

 

Excellent point, "Houseboy."

[Rick Munroe]

>>This makes me wonder...where does the U.S. now rank in the

>>world as far as civil rights?

>

>By "civil rights," do you myopically mean "gay rights"? If

>not, how are any countries more advanced than the U.S. with

>regard to laws guaranteeing equal protection of its citizens

>based on race, gender, religion, national origin, etc?

 

So, you're answering my question by asking my question in a different way? That was very informative; thanks.

 

>"Progressive" just means "liberal," so that's a meaningless

>question.

 

I just checked the dictionary and while they share some similarities (promoting new ideas), there are difference between the two (in particular, liberal includes "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others"). I don't see how that makes it a meaningless question, though. But what do I know? I'm just a dumb whore...

 

>It's ironic that the court decisions you are

>celebrating are ones where a MINORITY opinion trumps a

>majority opinion, and that laws which are enacted by a

>MAJORITY are ones that you think make the U.S.

>"anti-democratic."

 

Huh? I asked where the U.S. ranks in the world as far as civil rights. Where was I celebrating court decisions and declaring law to be anti-democratic? Honey, when I celebrate and declare, I want a chocolate cake from Billy's on 9th Ave, with lots of candles. And strippers. No, scratch that; I'll do the stripping myself. }(

[Luv2play]

Well Doug, when your "conservative" buddies throw you in jail for consorting with prostitutes, don't come crying to us "liberals" to help you out. Of course, being "progressive", we'll probably relent and give you legal aid if you can't come up with the $$$ to pay your lawyers. And if you get beat up by those nasty redneck friends of yours for being "queer", we'll no doubt let you have access to our medical system which is accessible to everyone, no matter what their income level is, because we are "progressive" after all. Oh, and if, after all, you want to get married to your sweetie, we'll let you, because we're "progressive", don't you know? Oh, but I forgot, "progressive" is "meaningless", according to you. Well, maybe to you but not to me, since I enjoy all of the above "rights" in my "liberal" country, which is Canada.

[Rick Munroe]

>"Progressive" just means liberal, so who cares if other

>countries are more "progressive"?

 

Ummm...those who care. Wasn't that simple, Doug?

[trilingual]

"Progressive" does not equal "liberal," but neither are dirty words, as Dougie would have us believe. Tough noogies, sweetums. As for all those constitutional protections you cite, it will probably come as a schock to you to learn that the same rights are guaranteed in most of the constitutions of the world and are actually enforced by the government and the courts in a great many countries.

 

As for Dougie's freedom to starve (rather than have government direct some more equitable distribution of wealth) I hope he does. Just as soon as his friendly U.S. government lets his pension plan go under, or whatever. Freedom from hunger and want are also a form of freedom and a fundamental underpinning of any democratic state. Without those, political freedoms are meaningless.

 

I'm not up on my latest Congo politics, but Houseboy is right about Haiti. It finally did have a democratically elected President (and elected with strong U.S. support, I might add). When things didn't go the way we planned, we pulled the rug out from under him. I realize this is oversimplifying, since Aristide did some profoundly undemocratic things after he was elected, but the U.S. was in a position to exert great influence to help guide him and Haiti towards a functioning democratic system. But we couldn't be bothered, especially not under Bush. After all, there's no oil in Haiti! Just poor black people who have to be kept out of the U.S. by gunboats! And no commies, so bleeding right-wing hearts like Dougie's can coddle their right-wing opponents, like the racist Cuban elite that fled to Miami and still tries to run the local Cuban community like it did under the Batista dictatorship. But that's a whole 'nuther story. . .

[+ Lucky]

"In case you haven't noticed, our elected officials are elected by the citizens and laws are enacted by those officials. That's the very definition of democracy. How could other countries be more "democratic"? Because they have more judges who strike down more democratically enacted laws? "

 

It's hard to believe that someone living in New York could make that statement. The State Senate and Assembly are elected by the people in districts gerrymandered to get the result that the power want. And then, lest they act democratically, the entire process is dictated by 3 men, the governor, the speaker and the head of the senate. No one else can carry the ball without their explicit permission.

 

Where judges are elected, it is also a rigged process with the political parties hand-picking their candidates in a slate. RARELY does anyone ever win unless they have been approved by the head of the local political club. One person, not the voters picks the judges.

 

Of course, our mayor was democratically elected, but then he spent 62 million of his own dollars to ensure victory!

[Doug69]

>Well, maybe to you but not to me, since I enjoy all of the >above "rights" in my "liberal" country, which is Canada

 

Fortunately for me, I'm not you - which means that I don't live in fear of all the bad, mean people who want to hurt me, and it also means that I don't think that for any problem which may arise, I need my Daddy, the Government, to help me out, because I'm too weak and unresourceful to solve it myself. That's because, unlike you, I don't see myself as a weak, scared, oppressed, little victim for whom beatings and injuries and concentration camps lurk around every corner, and therefore kneel every day and beg society to structure itself around all of my weaknesses and vulnerablitiles.

 

It's amazing how starkly your post reveals that you, like so many of your ilk, based your entire political viewpoint around your personal internal neuroses, and how you think that the entire world should cater to your failings and fears. What a dank, horrifying prison you live in. As I said, fortunately for me, I'm not you - so none of the questions you asked me are the slightest bit relevant, let alone persuasive.

 

Then again, I don't live in Canada, so that probably explains a lot of it. What a great and important country you have there. If only the U.S. could acheive the importance and influence that Canada has, that would be great. But to do that, we would have to start paying heed to the sanctimonious, effete lectures which constantly flow from that frozen tundra of irrelevance and mediocrity that you call your country, and I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon.

[Guest YFSC]

>(Montreal, Quebec) Quebec's highest court Thursday joined

>Ontario and British Columbia in ruling that the federal

>government's definition of marriage is unconstitutional and

>that same-sex couples were entitled to marry.

 

These are only 3 out of 10 Canadian provinces, but they are by far the most influential. They are by far the most populous and the most economically developed. The Quebec decision is also more important than it might seem because Quebec has a different kind of legal system (Civil Law, based on the Napoleonic Code), as opposed to the other Canadian provinces, which follow legal systems based on British Common Law (like the US).

 

Quebec has often felt itself at odds with the rest of Canada over a variety of issues involving language, culture and attitudes, as well as other things. A decision going the other way on this issue would/could have been a serious impediment to a nationwide policy in Canada, since the federal government is always at pains to hold the country together and avoid alienating Quebec.

 

The fact that both legal systems in Canada have independently come to the same decision is very significant.

[Guest houseboy]

Well, "Doug" just as the United States did not start as a democratic country, every place has to start the process of its democratization somewhere. Electing a leader would be a good place to start if you ask me, but if a democratically elected leader is taken out by a foreign government (assassinated by U.S.-sponsored goons in the case of the Congo) because he / she might prove trouble for said foreign government, we should not be surprised if democracy is not off to a good start there.

 

Sean Lespagnol

Chicago, IL

http://www.seanlespagnol.com

 

"Big and tasty - every day!"

[Guest houseboy]

>"Progressive" just means "liberal," so that's a meaningless

>question. How are any countries more "democratic" than the

>U.S.? It's ironic that the court decisions you are

>celebrating are ones where a MINORITY opinion trumps a

>majority opinion, and that laws which are enacted by a

>MAJORITY are ones that you think make the U.S.

>"anti-democratic."

 

Well, one could then, of course, also argue that as long as only a minority in the United States actually goes to the polls, any decision made by "democratically" elected leaders ends up being a minority issue anyway.

 

 

Sean Lespagnol

Chicago, IL

http://www.seanlespagnol.com

 

"Big and tasty - every day!"

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Elected officials in the U.S. are elected by the nation's

>citizens, and our laws are enacted by those elected officials.

>It doesn't get any more democratic than that.

 

Well, the president isn't (and certainly not the current president). He's "elected" by the electoral college, and if you'll pardon my saying so, it can and should get more democratic than that.

[Rick Munroe]

>Fortunately for me, I'm not you - which means that I don't

>live in fear of all the bad, mean people who want to hurt me,

>and it also means that I don't think that for any problem

>which may arise, I need my Daddy, the Government, to help me

>out, because I'm too weak and unresourceful to solve it

>myself. That's because, unlike you, I don't see myself as a

>weak, scared, oppressed, little victim for whom beatings and

>injuries and concentration camps lurk around every corner, and

>therefore kneel every day and beg society to structure itself

>around all of my weaknesses and vulnerablitiles.

 

Doug, I always love when I can use a phrase that a friend of mine, who was from Long Island, used to always say in situations like this: Oh, geez. :7

[Guest YFSC]

> What Quebec does is extremely influential in the Latin

>countries that operate under civil law because its Civil Code

>(which governs marriage and family law, among other things) is

>probably the most modern and progressive in the world. Other

>civil law countries (like Brazil) have looked to Quebec when

>reforming and updating their own Civil Codes.

 

This is very true. The legal systems of those countries derive from the same tradition and practices as that of Quebec, which is not the same tradition and practices of the legal systems in the UK, US, the rest of Canada, etc. So they feel a certain kinship and the specifics are more commensurate and more easily transferred from one to another.

[fedssocr1]

I find this to be an interesting discussion.

 

Unfortunately Doug this country has a constitution which has certain protections built into it that, as a wise judge once said, protect the minority from tyranny by the majority. People seem to have the notion that everything in this country is and should be run by "majority rule". If that were the case we'd probably have no civil rights laws at all in this country. Luckily we have a system that to a certain extent protects minorities.

 

It's sad that there's no real sense of community in America anymore. It seems that all anyone cares about is looking out for number one and nobody gives a shit about anyone else. All of this tax cutting and less support for those who either can't find a decent job or who have other problems that make them poor just leaves the country in more and more dire straits. Sure those of us who have good jobs and who are doing well are fine for now. But there will come a time when everyone's standard of living will be seriously adversely effected because of the policies we have which further divide the haves and the have nots.

 

Certainly the "welfare states" in Europe have their own looming problems, but at least there they have health care for their citizens and don't treat poor people like criminals. And they have a superior sense of style. :-)

 

I would quibble with the notion some one earlier in the thread raised about gay sex always having been legal in most of Europe including Germany. In fact there was a law on the books there outlawing homosexuals until very recently. I think it dated back to the 19th century. Maybe a historian out there can fill us in. The fact that those countries are progressive now doesn't mean they always were.

 

But good for Quebec in joining Ontario and BC! I suppose the gov't in Alberta will have something new to rail against now.

[Luv2play]

Actually, the court in Quebec was deciding on the federal law which is the Marriage Act, which applies all across Canada. This act defines marriage and three courts have now found it to be unconstitutional. There is a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada by the federal government to settle the issue, which is pending.

 

In the meantime, people of the same sex are getting married in Ontario and British Columbia, and presumably will be doing so soon in Quebec. There are already same-sex civil unions in Quebec but the Minister responsible made some noises the other day about having to recognize marriages, but I am not actually aware of any having taken place as of yet.

 

Canada being a federation, the laws on marriage are divided between the federal and provincial levels. So while the federal legislation defines who can get married, the provinces actually administer the process itself, including issuing licenses. Complex, eh!