Home Mail Chat Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > Washington DC and The Holy Land

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-08-2015, 09:00 AM  
Eleazar Eleazar is offline
In Search of a Life
 
Eleazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Casino cash: $500
Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada

This should be a lively discussion.


Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada
by Bradley Miller
November 5th, 2012


The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext. 1

When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. 2 At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations. 3

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. 4 Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, 5 and ministers of small congregations of Christians. 6 A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage. 7

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, 8 none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. 9 Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. 10 Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated. 11

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices. 12

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households. 13

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies. 14

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. 15 Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.

Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage

It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.

One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government. 16

The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.

The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.

The Impact on the Practice of Marriage

As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home. 17

There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.

What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.

Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information. We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception? If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.

Bradley W. Miller is an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and a Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Print Friendly
Notes:

See, for example, the comments of Justice LaForme in Halpern v. Canada (AG), 2002 CanLII 49633 (On SC), paras. 242-43. ↩
See, for example, Saskatchewan: Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under the Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3. ↩
Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and others, 2005 BCHRT 544. ↩
See the remedy ordered by the Alberta Human Rights tribunal (later overturned on judicial review) in Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300. ↩
Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, 2010 SKCA 26; Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300; Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327 (CanLII). ↩
Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300. ↩
Fred Henry, Bishop of Calgary, Alberta http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4917; note also the experience of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight, who spent $20,000 defending a human rights complaint that was eventually dismissed. ↩
http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/2101...hts-commission. ↩
E.g., Kempling v. British Columbia College of Teachers, 2005 BCCA 327 (CanLII) ↩
Ibid. ↩
E.g., the dismissal of Ontario sportscaster Damian Goddard by Rogers Sportsnet for tweeting his support of traditional marriage: ‘Broadcaster fired after controversial tweet files human rights complaint’, National Post, June 23, 2011: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/...hts-complaint/. ↩
Scolaire de Chenes; Glen Hansman, “Parents cannot ‘opt out’ of provincial curriculum: clarifying alternative delivery”, BC Teachers’ Federation Teacher Newsmagazine, vol. 19, no.2, October 2006, available at http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagA...printPage=true. ↩
See the legislative preamble to Ontario’s Accepting Schools Act, S.O. 2012 C.5. See also, Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710. The same fault lines are visible in S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chenes, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235. ↩
Civil Marriage Act, S.C. 2005 c. 33, ss. 3 – 3.1. ↩
Accepting Schools Act, S.O. 2012 C.5. ↩
Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588. ↩
The data below is taken from the Statistics Canada website: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...x-eng.cfm#tab5. ↩

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/
Posts: 58,006
Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.Eleazar is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:04 AM   #2
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Food Trends: NothingBurgers!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $70063
I said it before, and I'll say it again—this movement is about implementing cultural Marxism. Otherwise, you'd not see those things you bolded happening.

Same with the race activism going on. Prepare for more restrictions on liberty. Communists and other tyrants use these groups as pawns.
__________________
Posts: 94,338
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:22 AM   #3
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is online now
Eat shit liberals
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $60258
Make sure you realize the Left isn't the only side accusing dissenters of "hate and bigotry". Frasod and Patteu were furious at me for attacking the GayStapo too and we are starting to see this with various GOP types.


Obv I never engaged Frasod as he was a hyper idiot, but I tried to explain to Patteu this issue isn't about fairness but about forced suppression of speech and dissent and conformity. He just blew up and belched out the old "Fred Phelps!" Line like all Tards do. Again: these are GOP voters, not Cosmo-Lane types
__________________
This latest murder in no way represents Islam.
Posts: 44,369
Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:27 AM   #4
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
weakening of the marriage culture
.....
__________________
Posts: 33,805
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:33 AM   #5
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $29908
I would be more interested in a similar study regarding effects in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been permitted for over 10 years now.

"weakening of marriage culture"? WTF does that mean? What heterosexual doesn't marry because homosexuals can?
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 40,214
Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.Amnorix is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:52 AM   #6
Sully Sully is offline
It Goes On
 
Sully's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lees Summit
Casino cash: $36431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
This should be a lively discussion.


Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada
by Bradley Miller
November 5th, 2012


The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?

There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext. 1
I must be missing the context, here. Why would this argument be taking place in a court once it's decided, unless there has been further attempts to take away marriage for homosexuals. Absolutely no snark, here. i just don't get why this would happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. 2 At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations. 3
I guess for the first part, here, the equal would be the guy at the courthouse who signs the paper. I suppose that, if homosexual marriage were legal, part of his or her job would be to sign those papers. Working a job that they knowingly had issue with is probably on them, I'd think. I think it'd be silly for an Amish guy to work at the DMV, and refuse to pass out drivers licenses because he doesn't believe in driving.
Second part is sticky, but personally I'd err to letting them refuse the service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. 4 Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, 5 and ministers of small congregations of Christians. 6 A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage. 7

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, 8 none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. 9 Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
On one hand, I don't think this could happen, as described in the US. Not knowing free speech and anti-discrimination laws in Canada, the context of this writing tells me they are much different. So as far as prosecution/fines... Not gonna happen. However, we do know that government entities have been used before as tools of coercion and revenge. I'd stand right next to anyone and fight against that if it were to happen widely, as this article implies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. 10 Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated. 11

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices. 12

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households. 13

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.
I'm very torn on this.

On one hand, as a supporter of homosexual marriage, I think, "Of course it should be shown as equal. If it's legal, it ****ing is."
But on the other hand, I'm all about getting God out of schools, so I can see the same issue against this. Tough call, and i have to give it some thought.
__________________
"And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car."
- Tommy Lasorda

Posts: 18,120
Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 09:58 AM   #7
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $63575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
This should be a lively discussion.


Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada
by Bradley Miller
November 5th, 2012


The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.
I was getting ready to read the whole thing, but then saw "weakening of the marriage culture" and knew I was in for some BS and decided against it.

I guess I'll just have to wonder what was meant by "restrictions on free speech rights" because that sounds like BS also. I assume it means they can't draw Muhammad.
Posts: 37,420
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:03 AM   #8
Sully Sully is offline
It Goes On
 
Sully's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lees Summit
Casino cash: $36431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies. 14

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. 15 Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.
Alright. let's make sure ours is better written to keep this from happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage

It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.

One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government. 16

The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.

The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.
Okay. Not sure this is a strong argument either way. "If we let homosexuals marry, then we'll have to ask whether polygamists can marry!" Okay. Let's look at it. We are smart enough to deal with situations as they arise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
The Impact on the Practice of Marriage

As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home. 17

There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.

What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.
making fun of "marriage culture" aside, someone actually argued that allowing homosexual marriage would "power a resurgent marriage culture?"

****sticks... I can't help that there were people that made some dumbass argument, even if they were for the same thing I was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information.
Seems correct


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception?
Unless I am misunderstanding what he means by the term "conjugal conception," I don't believe that itself leads to stability, so I disagree with the premise of his question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.
What damage? This is outta left field!
__________________
"And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car."
- Tommy Lasorda

Posts: 18,120
Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:13 AM   #9
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $63575
Maybe I'll give in read the whole thing later, but it probably should be noted that whatever horrible effects gay marriage has had in Canada, it is being viewed against CANADA's laws and rights and not the US. In that sense, it is not a precise comparison or completely relevant to the future doom we likely face in the US.
Posts: 37,420
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:19 AM   #10
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is online now
Eat shit liberals
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $60258
I think one reason heteros have become more tolerant of gays is their own acceptance of butt-sex as an alternative form. I never heard of the concept until about 5-10 years ago and it's mentioned continually in pop culture. Honestly I have no clue what the appeal is but apparently it exists. Usually as a solution to sexual boredom.

When Cosmo and his Goth girlfriend smoke some hash and decide to go all pooper, they think gays are less "icky" than before.
__________________
This latest murder in no way represents Islam.
Posts: 44,369
Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.Prison Bitch is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:20 AM   #11
Sully Sully is offline
It Goes On
 
Sully's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lees Summit
Casino cash: $36431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
I think one reason heteros have become more tolerant of gays is their own acceptance of butt-sex as an alternative form. I never heard of the concept until about 5-10 years ago and it's mentioned continually in pop culture. Honestly I have no clue what the appeal is but apparently it exists. Usually as a solution to sexual boredom.

When Cosmo and his Goth girlfriend smoke some hash and decide to go all pooper, they think gays are less "icky" than before.
Yeah. I'm sure that's it.
__________________
"And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car."
- Tommy Lasorda

Posts: 18,120
Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.Sully threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:29 AM   #12
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $43375
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
I think one reason heteros have become more tolerant of gays is their own acceptance of butt-sex as an alternative form. I never heard of the concept until about 5-10 years ago and it's mentioned continually in pop culture. Honestly I have no clue what the appeal is but apparently it exists. Usually as a solution to sexual boredom.

When Cosmo and his Goth girlfriend smoke some hash and decide to go all pooper, they think gays are less "icky" than before.
How long have you known you are gay?
__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.
Posts: 38,227
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:40 AM   #13
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
I think one reason heteros have become more tolerant of gays is their own acceptance of butt-sex as an alternative form. I never heard of the concept until about 5-10 years ago and it's mentioned continually in pop culture. Honestly I have no clue what the appeal is but apparently it exists. Usually as a solution to sexual boredom.

When Cosmo and his Goth girlfriend smoke some hash and decide to go all pooper, they think gays are less "icky" than before.
Yeah, buttsex is a totally new concept.... and obviously evil..

....
__________________
Posts: 33,805
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:43 AM   #14
Pablo Pablo is online now
Ultrabanned
 
Pablo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Snakebite Nightclub
Casino cash: $29456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Yeah, buttsex is a totally new concept.... and obviously evil..

....
Kids these days are even using it as an alternative to regular sex and avoiding pregnancy all together! Disgusting heathens.

Just think of all the butt-sex Bitch's kids will be having when they come of age. He won't even be able to look them in the eyes.
Posts: 23,646
Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pablo is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:44 AM   #15
Detoxing Detoxing is offline
Needs more middle fingers
 
Detoxing's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Casino cash: $34663
The bolded parts are enough to make me not read it. The opening sentence reeks of RW fear mongering bullshit.
__________________
Don't half ass two things. Whole ass one thing.
Posts: 32,821
Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.Detoxing is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:37 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
Fort Worth Texas Process Servers
Covering Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie and surrounding communities.
Tarrant County, Texas and Johnson County, Texas.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.