Argh

[garran]

"...Paul Martin wants to impose same-sex marriage."

No, he doesn't. How does he want to do that? I've seen no indication that the proposed legal change would make such marriage mandatory; not even for religious institutions, which (certainly according to the Supreme Court) will continue to have to right to refuse to perform marriages to whomever they please. It's not even like the legality of smoking, which forces me, every once in a while, to take some of someone else's unhealthy choice into my lungs; the extent to which it will probably chafe a few people that the government acknowledges the validity of a moral standard other than their own can only be termed an imposition in the loosest sense. Are they being intentionally misleading?

This entry is about how Stephen Harper made me politically grumpy enough to complain about it in my weblog.

Comments

cola

[(Anonymous)]

Yesh, elyscape is correct. I meant that the result will be "We're married! Except in Alberta."

cola

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, wait. No! There's a whole concept missing. I meant that, if the federal government doesn't require the marriages to be recognized everywhere, the result will be "We're married! Except in Alberta." Which would be silly.

[garran.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the Federal Government isn't capable of not requiring a marriage they choose to legitimize to be recognized nationwide, because marriage is actually entirely under federal jurisdiction (except, I think, that the provincial governments get to decide who has marriage licenses). So if the definition under federal law is changed, the law in Alberta can be no exception, and it would be illegal and possibly unconstitutional for that province to ignore this (unless, of course, they invoke the notwithstanding clause, which would be... Kind of yucky).


-Garran