Lex malla, Lex nulla (Canada Legalized Gay Marriage Effective 2004)

May 1, 2003 | Adam Yoshida

[Jhoffa_]

Of interest bump..

[mvpel]

I have a far better solution - the the government OUT of the marriage business entirely.

Of course that would mean having to scrap all the carrot & stick social engineering that's imposed through the tax codes, but hey, life is not without sacrifices, right?

[yianni]

malla?

[ntnychik]

Sen. Rick Santorum's point.

[Houmatt]

Oh, boy.

The words are Carman are really ringing in my ears, now:

When it gets to the point where we would rather come out of the closet than clean it, it's a sign the judgement of God is gonna fall!

[OPS4]

Exactly, when the agenda of the government is to force legal recourse in an issue such as this, rather than have a vote of the will of the people, we have socialism at best.

Ops4 God Bless America!

[Jorge]

.... declaring that the Federal Government must impose gay marriage upon the people of Canada in little more than a year..

They can call it whatever they want...but a 'gay union' will never be a real marraige.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yep. It's amazing to me how many people who say they want limited government and no government-sponsored social engineering, insist that the government needs to be involved in defining, registering, and approving citizens' family arrangements. To hear these people tell it, you'd think the only reason that good stable heterosexual marriages continue to exist is because they've got the official approval stamp and license from the government. Somehow I doubt that . . .

[GovernmentShrinker]

What gives them the right to say to the couple who has been married for fifty years and which has five children and six grandchildren that, “you are no different than John and Jack who met one hot and noisy night in Stanley Park”?

They're not saying that. They're saying that Joe and Mary who met one hot and noisy night in a sleazy straight pick-up bar are no different than John and Jack who met one hot and noisy night in Stanley Park, and that as long as the government is registering marriages between the former, there's no legitimate reason not to register marriages between the latter. The real question is why any government is registering any of these relationships, or any of the ones between civilized people either.

[sakic]

Exactly, when the agenda of the government is to force legal recourse in an issue such as this, rather than have a vote of the will of the people, we have socialism at best.

It's refreshing to find someone who would say that if the citizens of America voted to legalize homosexual marriages, drugs, and bestiality that you would be all for it.

[lilylangtree]

Good grief! Is this accurate?

[jimkress]

Swell. Now my neighbor can go to Canada and marry his great dane.

[fr_freak]

They're not saying that. They're saying that Joe and Mary who met one hot and noisy night in a sleazy straight pick-up bar are no different than John and Jack who met one hot and noisy night in Stanley Park, and that as long as the government is registering marriages between the former, there's no legitimate reason not to register marriages between the latter. The real question is why any government is registering any of these relationships, or any of the ones between civilized people either.

First, this is a very cynical look at marriage. I am willing to bet that if we could poll all married couples in the US, we would find that very few met in a pick-up bar, especially ones that were sleazy (I'll accept hot and noisy). Homosexuals, however, have all of these wonderful meeting places that heterosexuals don't have, such as bath-houses, highway rest stops, and restroom glory holes. Some might meet in a fairly respectable way (if there is such a thing for homosexuals) but they are notorious for meeting in ways that are not pretty. That was the authors point. To suggest that the average hetero couple is equally as deviant is an inaccurate view to say the least.

Second, state laws exist regarding various things, such as inheritance. If there were no registration of a legal spouse, then all of the pre-assumed legal priveleges of a spouse that we have now would not exist, and thus when someone died it would be a big legal mess every time to determine who gets what afterward, not to mention the messes that would occur if a spouse were in a coma and someone were needed to decide whether a certain surgery were authorized. A legal marriage makes all of that easier (usually). Now, you could still argue that it is unnecessary if you really want to, depending on how hard core you are, but my point is that legal marriages do have a purpose.

Now that legal marriage does exist, there are a number of reasons why its definition should be limited to a union between a man and a woman. The foremost reason is that marriage has existed long before any of the governments that exist today and, if you're Judeo-Christian, it is a sacred covenant. Legal marriage arose out of the recognition of the institution of marriage and not the other way around. There is no basis in hman tradition for a recognition of marriage between homosexuals. Perhaps more importantly, though, is the Santorum question: where do we draw the line? If we say that it is not the government's business to define marriage, then will we allow marriage between siblings? between parents and children? between humans and animals? We must draw the line somewhere, and I think it is fairly obvious that we should draw the line at the point where we begin to legally endorse deviant behaviour.

[Peter Libra]

One could, of course, borrow from Senator Rick Santorum. If this type of "marriage" is to be legal by government enacted laws ,then they might ponder this. Since the definition of and I do like it, of marriage was once- One man, one woman, one God, then at least the first idea holds absolute.(Even without the deity).

Thus why then should not a man marry two women or a woman marry two men during the same ceremony? For the life of me, I cannot see why not, if one law is made changing the original state, why not another and another?

[GovernmentShrinker]

We should draw the line at the government putting official endorsement stamps on any kind of personal sexual and family-forming choices.

As for state laws, that's a big problem under the current system. Many people who get married have only the vaguest clue about what those laws are, or only know what they are in the state they're living in. Trouble is, the laws re inheritance and property division upon divorce vary tremendously between states, and when people move from one state to another the terms of their "contract" change automatically without their knowledge or approval. Anyone who wants any legal standing for any kind of relationship, marriage, business, or anything else, should get a contract drafted to reflect their agreement and sign it. That can take care of inheritance, property division in the event of dissolution of the partnership (just like any business partnership), powers of attorney, medical decisions, decisions regarding children, etc.

[Verginius Rufus]

It should read:

Lex mala, lex nulla.

A bad law is no law.

[yianni]

Bene, Rufus.

Mr Yoshida gets -2 pts on the cover of his blue book.

[mvpel]

The foremost reason is that marriage has existed long before any of the governments that exist today...

But yet....

If there were no registration of a legal spouse, then all of the pre-assumed legal priveleges of a spouse that we have now would not exist,

How ever did we manage back in the days before computerized registries of every last detail of our personal lives were maintained by the all-powerful, all-knowing government?

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Back to school. Lex malla, lex nulla.