Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lex malla, Lex nulla (Canada Legalized Gay Marriage Effective 2004)
May 1, 2003 | Adam Yoshida

Posted on 05/01/2003 4:30:44 PM PDT by adamyoshida

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: adamyoshida; yianni; Verginius Rufus
Ooops missed two pings.

See link in #20

Haste makes waste, so make haste slowly.

21 posted on 05/01/2003 11:49:11 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: adamyoshida
International Healing Foundation

CLICK HERE

22 posted on 05/02/2003 1:18:13 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adamyoshida
My solution is the India-Pakistani one when India became independent from Britain.

All libs go north; all conservatives come south. Canada can be socialistic and PC and lib to its hearts content, and the U.S. can thrive and be the envy of the world.

23 posted on 05/02/2003 1:56:52 AM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
That sounds reasonable to me. Matter of fact, it sounds real good.

I know it will matter very little to them, but I do not ever plan on visting our neighbors to the north again. They have elevated "gouging" foreigners, to a fine art, anyway.
24 posted on 05/02/2003 3:56:51 AM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
Yup, UK and Poland look like good travel vacation spots, dropping off in Spain on the way back.;-)
25 posted on 05/02/2003 4:00:45 AM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: All
where is the link to the original article.
27 posted on 05/02/2003 4:38:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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

Bingo. It is when the churches gave up their responsibility to determine marraige that started this process. Let the Church define who is married and who is not. Get the state out of it.

For things like child support and property issues, honor the right to contract, and have an enforecable, written contract that both parties understand, instead of the unwritten, uncertain "marraige contract" where people learn that they have undertaken obligations and given up rights that they had no knowledge of. The obligations and rights even vary from state to state when you move, so you are not even held to the contractual facts of when and where you married!

28 posted on 05/02/2003 5:23:26 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: adamyoshida
For thousands of years marriage has been between one man and one woman.

The author can't even get his facts correct. The above statement is false. There have always been numerous places where polygamy has been legal and honored. It still is, even today, in most of Africa, the middle east, and much of Asia.

29 posted on 05/02/2003 5:27:33 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
It's amazing to me how many people who say they want limited government and no government-sponsored social engineering,...

Well, there's the problem right there. What they say they want, and what they really want are two different things. When people talk about limited government, they just mean they want government interference limited to those groups they have a beef with.

30 posted on 05/02/2003 5:31:42 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: adamyoshida
Canada,

The home of draft dodgers, want to be frenchmen and gay culture.... Oh, Canada.
31 posted on 05/02/2003 5:32:45 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
You realize, of course, that if the actual legal obligations of a marriage were written down (that is to say, "Here's what's going to happen to you if the whole thing goes bad"), no man in his right mind would sign the contract.
32 posted on 05/02/2003 5:34:05 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
His facts are quite correct. He is talking about Canada, a country which is a member of the British Commonwealth and which was founded by Englishmen and Frenchmen.

The culture which created the Canadian nation is the Judeo-Christian one, which has a tradition of monogamy going back thousands of years - monogamy was firmly rooted in the Roman, Germanic and Pharisaic Jewish cultures from which modern-day Canada ultimately derived.

33 posted on 05/02/2003 5:45:03 AM PDT by wideawake (Support our troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
"When people talk about limited government, they just mean they want government interference limited to those groups they have a beef with. "

Sadly, that's exactly true for most people.

34 posted on 05/02/2003 6:25:55 AM PDT by Qwerty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
For thousands of years the Jewish tradition has had a "ketubah" that outlines the groom's obligations to the bride, and specifies what happens in the event of dissolution of the marriage either by divorce or death.
35 posted on 05/02/2003 7:35:41 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
You realize, of course, that if the actual legal obligations of a marriage were written down (that is to say, "Here's what's going to happen to you if the whole thing goes bad"), no man in his right mind would sign the contract.

Yes, which is why this concept would quickly lead to saner, reasonable contracts. We are already seeing a trend in this direction with pre-nuptial agreements.

36 posted on 05/02/2003 8:13:16 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
It should read:

Lex mala, lex nulla.

A bad law is no law.

When I first read that, I thougt he was saying that marraige law was bad, and should be done away with. Boy, was I surprised!!

37 posted on 05/02/2003 8:19:16 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The culture which created the Canadian nation is the Judeo-Christian one, which has a tradition of monogamy going back thousands of years - monogamy was firmly rooted in the Roman, Germanic and Pharisaic Jewish cultures from which modern-day Canada ultimately derived.

For thousands of year, polygamy was practiced in Judaism. The Old Testament is chock full of it. The Germanic tribes practiced concubinage, though I have to admit, they only had one "wife" . The Romans definitely had concubinage, though again, only one wife. Having one wife in those cultures never meant exclusive sex with only that woman, as it came to be in later Christian cultures.

It is possible that my limited reading of history is incorrect, but AFAIK, the above statement is true. Please show me Roman Law forbidding sex with a woman not your wife, if you want an easy way to convince me that I am wrong about this.

38 posted on 05/02/2003 8:27:41 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Old Testament is chock full of it.

Yet by 400 BC, religious Judaism characterized the practice of polygamy as a privilege of the patriarchs and restricted it to levirate marriages.

By the time of Christ, Israel had long been a monogamous society.

The Germanic tribes practiced concubinage, though I have to admit, they only had one "wife".

In ancient German and Roman society, as in modern US society, the wealthy and powerful often had "kept women" or concubines. Yet the moral standard of society was monogamy - if concubinage were considered legitimate and socially acceptable, then it would have been a legally recognized and lauded aspect of the culture.

The Romans definitely had concubinage, though again, only one wife. Having one wife in those cultures never meant exclusive sex with only that woman, as it came to be in later Christian cultures.

The lex Julia de adulteriis of 18 BC provides for severe penalties for both female and male adulterers - there is no provision in the law for legal concubinage. Moreover, that law was instituted to harmonize and recodify preexisting laws on the same subject.

This happened decades before the name of Christ was ever circulated in Rome.

These cultures all had prostitution, extramarital affairs, mistresses, nobles having a quickie with the scullery maid, etc. So did Christian Europe.

None of them had official recognition, endorsement or encouragement of plural marriage.

39 posted on 05/02/2003 8:43:03 AM PDT by wideawake (Support our troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All
is this BC real? Is this on appeal? is this binding on other provinces? I have not been able to trace any corroberation.
40 posted on 05/02/2003 9:15:57 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson